UNESCO files complaint against Israeli delegation over Haaretz cartoon

[bemildred]

A cartoon published in Haaretz causes a rift between Israel's ambassador to UNESCO and the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

Israel's ambassador to UNESCO didn't know whether to laugh or cry when a senior official at the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization called him in for a tongue-lashing on Wednesday. The reason? A cartoon published in Haaretz.

The November 4 cartoon, a riff on the government's anger at UNESCO's decision to accept Palestine as a full member, showed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak sending an air force squadron to attack Iran, with Netanyahu ordering, "And on your way back, you're gonna hit the UNESCO office in Ramallah!"

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/unesco-files-complaint-against-israeli-delegation-over-haaretz-cartoon-1.394889

[bemildred]

1. After UNESCO vote, Israeli sanctions on Palestinian Authority anger U.S.

The United States on Thursday protested to the Prime Minister's Office against sanctions Israel has imposed on the Palestinian Authority, following UNESCO's acceptance of Palestine as a full member.

David Hale, the U.S. special envoy to the Middle East, and ambassador Dan Shapiro told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's aides that Washington objects to Israel freezing tax income that it collects for the Palestinians.


http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/after-unesco-vote-israeli-sanctions-on-palestinian-authority-anger-u-s-1.393600

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. Many UN bureaucrats have that kind of attitude

They do not get the free press thing and other concepts. Very big on their props and that they and the UN never get questioned let alone be used as the subject of humor or ridicule.

[shaayecanaan]

19. Apparently Israel doesnt either...

for quite a while they were insisting that the Government of Sweden should apologise for an article published in a Swedish tabloid newspaper.

[shira]

31. Apples and Oranges. The Swedish article was malicious libel and you know it. n/t

[shaayecanaan]

35. I'm not sure you understand the concept of a free press (nt)

[shira]

39. I'm not sure you understand your moral equivalencies are logical fallacies. Apples vs. Oranges. NT

[shaayecanaan]

45. If you can't publish stories about either apples or oranges, then you dont have a free press

ergo, you don't understand the concept. Complaining to the Swedish government about the Aftonbladet article made about as much sense as complaining to the Israeli government here.

[pelsar]

46. exactly it....

israel had no business complaining to the swedish govt.....its was an issue the israeli govt then took up with the author of the article directly...where he admitted to writing a false article

[azurnoir]

61. Boström said he lied? was that pre or post director of Israel's L. Greenberg Institute of Forensic

Medicine Yehuda Hiss was found to have harvested organs without perrmission from the families of the deceased?


Donald Boström and Aftonbladet Reaction

The author of the article, Donald Boström, spoke to Israel Radio on 19 August 2009 and said he was worried by the allegations he reported: "It concerns me, to the extent that I want it to be investigated, that's true. But whether it's true or not — I have no idea, I have no clue."<48> Boström told CNN that the purpose of his article was to call for an investigation into the claims about stealing organs in the early 1990s.<49> In an interview to the Arab media site Menassat, Boström said there was "no conclusive evidence" that organ harvesting was a systematic IDF practice, but that there is a "collection of allegations and suspicious circumstances". He was quoted as saying: "The point is that we know there is organ trafficking in Israel. And we also know that there are families claiming that their children's organs have been harvested. These two facts together point to the need for further investigation". Aftonbladet's editor, Jan Helin, said in response to the accusations: "I'm not a Nazi, I'm not anti-Semitic", and described himself as "a responsible editor who gave the green light to an article because it raises a few questions" but noted that , however, that Aftonbladet had no evidence that Israel practices organ harvesting. Aftonbladet published a follow-up to Boström's article, which defended his report and said that the organ-harvesting allegation "should be investigated, either to stop the relentless Palestinian rumors, or, if the rumors prove to be true, stop the trade in body parts". It called Bonnier's condemnation of the original article a "disgrace".<50>

Boström told Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot: "I am not an anti-Semite, and that's what saddens me most in this whole story. I've been a journalist for 25 years and I've always written against racism and segregation". He said that he had not meant to imply that IDF soldiers were killing Palestinians for their organs, and that "Even the Palestinians don't say that. What they said is that when the Israeli army returned the bodies, 62 of them had been autopsied and 20 Palestinian families I spoke to were certain that their sons' organs had been harvested". He acknowledged he had not personally seen evidence of organ harvesting, since the bodies that were returned to the families were never examined to determine whether organs had been taken: "As far as I know no one examined the bodies. All I'm saying is that this needs to be investigated". He also said that "Sweden supports Israel as a country and a people, and I am a part of this. There are many people, I among them, who condemn the Israeli government's policy of occupation and violation of international law. Israel needs to withdraw to its borders and evacuate the settlements. If Israel does this, support for you will reappear".

<snip>

In December 2009, Nancy Scheper-Hughes, an anthropology professor at the University of California at Berkeley and founder of a newsletter called "Organs Watch", released the tape of an interview she had conducted in 2000 with Yehuda Hiss, then director of Israel's L. Greenberg Institute of Forensic Medicine (known colloquially as the "Abu Kabir" Forensic Institute). In the interview, which appeared on Israel's Channel 2 television, Hiss stated that he had harvested organs in the 1990s. "We started to harvest corneas ... Whatever was done was highly informal. No permission was asked from the family."<70> Hiss was fired from his position as director of the forensic institute in 2004 for "repeated body-part scandals”.<71> Hiss was later reinstated and still retains the director's position.<72> Israeli officials acknowledged that incidents like that had taken place, but stated that the vast majority of cases involved Israeli citizens, that no such incidents had occurred for a long time, and that Hiss had been removed from his position.<73>

Scheper-Hughes stated that Palestinians were not the only ones affected "by a long shot", but that she felt the interview must be made public now because "the symbolism, you know, of taking skin of the population considered to be the enemy, (is) something, just in terms of its symbolic weight, that has to be reconsidered."<74> In an interview with Al Jazeera, Scheper-Hughes said the organ harvesting took place with the "sanction and approval" of the military establishment and that the "body parts were used by hospitals for transplant purposes - cornea transplants. They were sent to public hospitals .. and the skin went to a special skin bank, founded by the military, for their uses", such as for burns victims.<75>

Several news agencies reported that the Aftonbladet article had claimed that Israel killed Palestinians to harvest their organs,<76> although the author, the culture editor for Aftonbladet, and Nancy Scheper-Hughes denied that it had made this claim.<77> Nothing in the Hiss interview substantiated the accusation of deliberate killings.<[br />
This page was last modified on 3 November 2011 at 20:13.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Aftonbladet_Israel_controversy

[pelsar]

69. he admitted he had no proof..once published

to his credit he did come to israel to defend himself where he said that he had no proof.....

a classic blood libel...so good that people here are actually defending what the author wrote as fact, when he himself says it wasn't.

so why do you defend his very very specific accusation?.....just can't stand to let a good blood libel go to waste?

[King_David]

70. Amazing,is it not? nt

[holdencaufield]

2. And it begins...

...another UN agency will turn all their resources and energies into generating anti-Israel resolutions.

[parkia00]

4. Big bovine excrement.

So you think anyone or any organization that shows an ounce of support for the Palestinians equates to being anti-Israel? I guess that would make the world a very simple place to live in for some people huh? Do you think spitting out such accusations help Israel's position at all. Or could it be possible that such accusations of anti-Israel or anti-Semitic or similar rhetoric simply further reinforce the position that Israel and it's patriotic flag waving troupe is starting to smell like week old herring?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. Actually this is a case of a UN stuffed shirt getting offended at a cartoon

They do that

[parkia00]

9. Yes they do ...

But I was refering to Holden's

"another UN agency will turn all their resources and energies into generating anti-Israel resolutions" remark.

[King_David]

12. Because everyone knows he's right

You never knew this before?

You don't keep up with this?

[parkia00]

13. Who is "he"?

Who are you talking about?

[King_David]

16. Holden's remarks about " another UN" agency. NT

[parkia00]

23. Right.....

So... now UNESCO is anti-Israel/anti-Semitic along with all the rest of the evil UN. It has joined the leagues of other evil anti-Israel/anti-Semitic organizations like the Red Cross, UNHCR, Amnesty International, Médecins Sans Frontières and the local Wal-Mart greeter. While we are at it, should we also include any law enforcement personnel who arrest anyone that is Jewish for a crime as suggested by one of our local DU Israel champions a few years back who indicated that the arrest of Madoff is nothing more than a case of Antisemitism? (WTF?) Or would that be over the top?

Is there anyway for any disagreement about Israel's actions not be construed as anti-Israel or "want to see Israel destroyed" or "want to see Jews die" accusations? You are either with us or against mentally.

[King_David]

25. Hasn't' joined', always has been

Look up the UNHRC . Educate yourself.

;)

[parkia00]

26. Educate yourself first.

UNHCR isn't only about the Palestinians. They work worldwide. Their activities do not revolve around satisfying Israel's whims and desires. You prefer them not to exist and close shop worldwide and stop giving aid to millions? Just because they refuse to dance to the "right" tune Israel supporters demand they are labeled as anti_Israel or whatever other accusation that is convenient for the time. As for UNHRC; next thing we will hear is supporting human rights is being anti-Israel. Or that Palestinian aren't human!

Tell you what. You can go ahead and label and accuse whoever or whatever entity as being anti-Israel 0r anti-Semitic. It really does not matter anymore. Intelligent people with a level head can tell the difference. The same type of people who know Obama is not a Muslim and is a US citizen. But that does not stop some people with their own agenda who will still push the dead horse chariot. It's not my reputation at risk nor the country's reputation being tarnished with infantile accusations leveled against those who refuse to play the game "your way".

[King_David]

34. Guess you did not like what you read about the UNHRC

Well nor do I.

How many resolutions against The Jewish State vs Syria or Uganda?


ha ha ha

[parkia00]

37. Your ramblings are getting more and more bazaar.

Where the hell did I say I have a problem with the UNHCR? Huh? How the hell did you manage to come up with that shit? I have no problems with the organization and I support it. Even if it means making some governments uneasy. Only some shallow minded twats have a problem with the organization. UNHRC encourage the promotion of human rights all over the world. However just because the organization also promotes the rights of some groups of people which other groups find are undeserving of any rights, the whole organization and all the work they do must be attacked tea party style.

As for resolutions. Why condemn Israel? Because the country is supposed to be a modern, democratic, first world country; which it is. In essence, it's supposed to be better, more enlightened and thus held to a higher standard than the other countries you indicated. However if you feel that Israel should lower it's standards, by all means compare it to Syria and Uganda. That's always smart.

Keep laughing like a mad monarch. Paranoid, angry, snapping at everyone and convincing yourself that everyone is against you.

[King_David]

54. Actually this post comes across as being very angry

And hostile .

I think you realize how selectively biased the UNHRC is.

Its composition until very recently included Libya and Syria .

Ha ha ha

(ETA:"37. Your ramblings are getting more and more bazaar."
Is that like an outdoor market or like a Church Bazaar?)

[parkia00]

66. Just fustrating

Like it can be frustrating to try to argue with Pamela Geller over Islam. I apologize for my spelling mistake over bazaar rather than bizarre which confused you.

[Shaktimaan]

60. fyi

Only some shallow minded twats have a problem with the organization.

-----

In 2007 Human Rights Watch noted the Human Rights Council disproportionate focus on Israel and accused it for failing to take action on other countries facing human rights crises.<116> Similar accusations were voiced by Freedom House,<117><118> the Washington Post,<119> Kofi Annan,<120> Ban Ki-moon,<121> US President George W. Bush,<122> and members of the European Parliament.<123> The UNHRC President himself, Doru Costea, said in 2007 that the Council should "not place just one state under the magnifying glass".

Renewed accusations of an anti-Israel agenda at the UNHCR were voiced by the ADL,<127> the Wall Street Journal<128> and the National Post.<129> In a report on the Council activities between June 2007 and June 2009, Freedom House finds some improvement but notes that "Israel remained the target of an inordinate number of both condemnatory resolutions and special sessions."

Esther Brimmer of the United States State Department said on September 15, 2010 "we must remedy the Council’s ongoing biased and disproportionate focus on Israel."<131> US Congress member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen called for defunding of the HRC over its excessive criticism of Israel.<132> The Daily News (New York) denounces the apparent bias at the HRC in two editorials.<133><134> Current United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay denied the accusations of anti-Israel bias at the Council.<135> Addressing the Council in February 2011, Hillary Clinton denounced its "structural bias against Israel".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel,_Palestine,_and_the_United_Nations#Human_Rights_Council

------

In 2006, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan argued that the Commission should not have a "disproportionate focus on violations by Israel. Not that Israel should be given a free pass. Absolutely not. But the Council should give the same attention to grave violations committed by other states as well."<49>

On 20 June 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued a statement that read: "The Secretary-General is disappointed at the council's decision to single out only one specific regional item given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNHRC

------

Wow, that is certainly a LOT of shallow minded twats, don't you think???

[Shaktimaan]

50. Are you serious?

Intelligent people with a level head can tell the difference.

Yes, we can. Actually, anyone would be able to detect this level of bias. Israel is the ONLY country the UNHRC has ever condemned. And HALF of is resolutions EVER are condemnations of Israel. Fact finding missions are routinely tasked with investigating abuses by Israel but are FORBIDDEN from looking into crimes by any other state involved in the conflict, regardless of the horrific events that occurred or who committed them. Israel is also the sole UN member state forbidden from participating in the HRC.


Since 2006, the review of human rights abuses by Israel was made a permanent feature of every council session. No other country is subject to a permanent review. In 2010, Canadian politician Irwin Cotler wrote:

...in an appalling breach of its own principles and procedures, the UN Human Rights Council has institutionalised a permanent agenda item indicting one member state -- agenda item No 7, which speaks of "Israeli human rights violations in the occupied Palestinian territories" -- while agenda item No 8 speaks of "human rights violations in the rest of the world". Here is an Alice in Wonderland situation where the conviction is secured before the hearing begins.

According to UN Watch, between 2006 and 2010, the Council held six of nine special sessions on Israel, 35 of 40 or so resolutions on Israel and all five fact-finding missions on Israel, "all with the guilty verdict declared in advance."

The Special Rapporteur on the question of Palestine to the previous UNCHR, the current UNHRC and the General Assembly was, between 2001 and 2008, John Dugard. The mandate of the Rapporteur is to investigate human rights violations by Israel only, not by Palestinians. Dugard was replaced in 2008 with Richard Falk, who has compared Israel's treatment of Palestinians with the Nazis' treatment of Jews during the Holocaust. Like his predecessor, Falk's mandate only covers Israel’s human rights record.

----
UNHCR isn't only about the Palestinians. They work worldwide. Their activities do not revolve around satisfying Israel's whims and desires. You prefer them not to exist and close shop worldwide and stop giving aid to millions?

oh really?


Many observers have made allegations of anti-Israel bias. The Economist wrote: "In its fourth regular session, which ended in Geneva on March 30, the 47-member council again failed to address many egregious human-rights abuses around the world. (...) Indeed, in its nine months of life, the council has criticised only one country for human-rights violations, passing in its latest session its ninth resolution against Israel." In 2007 Human Rights Watch noted the Human Rights Council disproportionate focus on Israel and accused it for failing to take action on other countries facing human rights crises. Similar accusations were voiced by Freedom House,<117><118> the Washington Post,<119> Kofi Annan,<120> Ban Ki-moon,<121> US President George W. Bush,<122> and members of the European Parliament.<123> The UNHRC President himself, Doru Costea, said in 2007 that the Council should "not place just one state under the magnifying glass". <124>

------

But since you admonished everyone to educate ourselves first I assume you must know all about this stuff. So then my question to you is how can you possibly defend behavior like this as being unbiased towards Israel? Can you please explain why critiquing actions as egregiously anti-Israel as these is "infantile" or on the same level as insisting that Palestinian aren't human? Why do you think Israel needs as many resources diverted to investigating it's crimes against humanity as all of the countries in the rest of the whole world combined?

Please, educate me.

[parkia00]

51. Unfortunately I cannot do that.

Can bring horse to water but you can't make it drink. Perhaps Israel cheerleaders can create a new human rights organization that caters better to their views.

Why Israel? Maybe because it's actions are done in a very public manner with the world's news organization watching and recording? No one can give Israel a worse reputation than it does itself. In all other countries, when human right violations are taking place it generally kept as low key as possible. It is much harder to do now with micro blogging and internet penetration. People notice. People notice more if your a loud, belligerent and the largest elephant in a room of smaller elephants. In actions that attract attention to themselves, you can't beat the Israeli elephant. It is not be the worst elephant in the room but certainly the loudest and crankiest.

You most likely convinced I'm all bullshit. That's okey. You are you. What's important is world perception on Israel. That perception is slowly but steadily eroding. You can call on some countries including little Pacific islands as "true friends" but that circle is shrinking. Of course you can also just throw an tantrum and accuse left and right.

[shira]

52. Israel's responses to rockets are done in a very public manner? However, rocket attacks...

...suicide bombings, and incidents like the Itamar massacre were - like other countries - kept low key in comparison by the culprits b/c there's really no media presence in Gaza or the W.Bank? And that's why the UN isn't as loud and cranky about that as they are with Israel's actions?

Holy shit.

Same for 3000 dead in Syria, genocide in Sudan...all low key?

:eyes:

Dude, the Turkish Marmara incident grabbed more headlines and UN condemnations than other LOUD horrific things happening worldwide. Since then, the world has learned - at least those paying attention know - that the blockade is legal (UN said so), there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza (ICRC) and the activists killed on that boat were pro-Hamas terrorists.

Those paying attention also know about the UN...

a) Goldstone reversed himself on his report
b) There was no Jenin massacre
c) Zionism isn't racism

etc., etc....

Only the intentionally blind can't see a problem here with the UN and their cheerleaders...

[parkia00]

56. It is LOWER Key...

Not going well for Syria isn't it? Why? Because it is widely being broadcast worldwide! The regime has failed to understand their heavy handed actions breed more dissent because their actions are being broadcast. That's why people are up in arms. The Marmara incident was done in full view of live telecast by many reporters. It GETS noticed! I don't care how justified you feel your actions are. If you drop 1 ton bombs in a built up populated urban area and kill little children, you're going to look like shit! People are going to see that shit and look to the faction that did the bombing. Even if there are militants nearby. Even if they are hiding amongst the children, you are still going to look like shit. And don't point your fingers at Palestinian terrorists for doing the same thing. They're terrorists. That's what they do. Israel is not on the same boat as them.

So we all know you hate the UN. They and all their little umbrella organizations are all anti-Israel and just dream up ways to make Israel look bad. So what other organizations should be black listed for saying negative things about Israel? Red Cross? Amnesty International? Doctors Without Borders? Just to name some better known ones. Am I on crack? No. Cause all these organizations I have read here on DU being condemned by pro-Israel hawks. Do yo agree?

[shira]

58. No, it's political. It's not about being lower key and media presence...

There's one standard for everyone else and another for Israel. The US, UK, and NATO are far worse in comparison to Israel when it comes to war and civilian casualties, but Israel is held to a different and higher standard than those militaries. So it's not just Israel vs. 3rd world tinpot dictator nations.

It's purely political as some organizations feel they must manipulate the media and UN in order to even the battlefield vs. Israel.

The Oil Lobby is a big influence you shouldn't underestimate either. They absolutely hate Israel and will use the price of oil to buy votes against Israel.

[Shaktimaan]

53. I can just throw a tantrum?

What is that supposed to be in reference to?

I'm not sure if you got the point of my last post. You see, you seem to be rather sure of yourself and the validity of your opinions. To the point that you just assume that anyone who disagrees with you must be either a moron who is incapable of grasping the inherent moral superiority of your arguments, that they merely aren't as well-informed as you are, or that they are total racist xenophobes. In fact, you seem SO sure of yourself that it looks like you are comfortable instructing others to "educate themselves" even when you haven't bothered to gather the facts for yourself beforehand. I guess you just assume that any critical facts will support your argument, so confident are you of this ideology you've staked out.

Remember when you wrote this:

Only some shallow minded twats have a problem with the organization. UNHRC encourage the promotion of human rights all over the world. However just because the organization also promotes the rights of some groups of people which other groups find are undeserving of any rights, the whole organization and all the work they do must be attacked tea party style.

So basically, anyone who finds a reason to critique this organization must be a feeble-minded jerk, but more important is to consider the motivation behind the criticism. Apparently the UNHRC is such an irreproachable outfit that the only possible motive must be racism. Specifically a belief that Palestinians are undeserving of even the most meagre of rights.

Like, wow!

So the obvious problem that I'm sure you've figured out by now, is that the UNHRC is one of the most blatantly prejudicicial human rights organization in existence. The fact is that their key mission is to attack Israel under the rubrick of human rights... not the actual promotion of real human rights or the investigation of legitimate HR violations around the world. This isn't something they even try to camouflage. It couldn't be more obvious.

Now you seem to think that none of this matters because investigating Israel's HR violations is a worthy activity and any other HR work they do on the side can only help. But there is more at stake here. Forgetting for the moment, about the multitude of HR violations that are being ignored completely so that the HRC can focus on Israel almost exclusively, when the official org representing the UN decides to entirely abandon even the veneer of ethical conduct it tarnishes all of the good work that is HAS done (which in this case is negligable), but it also invalidates any of its findings on Israel. Worst of all it makes the findings of other UN orgs, even unrelated ones, circumspect. After all, if the UN is content funding such a high-profile agency despite the fact that its protocol is determined by such malevolence then everyone loses credibility.

Israel was not chosen because it was seen as the "crankiest elephant." I actually have no odea what you're even referring to there. It makes no sense. To instruct their fact-finding teams to root out evidence SOLELY against Israel while FORBIDDING the investigation of any other players in the conflict is clearly not an attempt to discover the facts of the situation, but a highly partisan attempt at finding ammunition to use against Israel.

What's important is world perception on Israel.

There's more than that at stake. If the UN is completely unable to act as a neutral arbiter over issues related to the conflict then who will do it? When accusations of human rights violations are made (and they will be), who will form an investigative team to neutrally assess what happened? The last person the UNHRC chose to head a team like that was reprimanded for putting anti-semitic cartoons up on his personal blog.

...just because the organization also promotes the rights of some groups of people which other groups find are undeserving of any rights...

This is getting so surreal. So what... people who are pro-Israel can't even complain about the inherent racism at the UNHRC without being accused of racism themselves?

No one can give Israel a worse reputation than it does itself.

Really? So when speakers at the UN accuse Israel of kidnapping Palestinian children to steal their organs, or of poisoning Arab wells with AIDS or of using the blood of virgins to make matzoh, or even of personally hearing Israeli schoolchildren sing a song about drinking the blood of innocent Arab kids, and so on... none of that stuff contributes to hatred and fear of Jews?

[parkia00]

57. So the UN is indeed working against Israel?

"when speakers at the UN accuse Israel of kidnapping Palestinian children to steal their organs, or of poisoning Arab wells with AIDS or of using the blood of virgins to make matzoh, or even of personally hearing Israeli schoolchildren sing a song about drinking the blood of innocent Arab kids, and so on... none of that stuff contributes to hatred and fear of Jews?"

Sure that does. Because there are racists and other idiots at the UN (an Iranian President comes to mind). Are you going to take the actions of a few to smear the whole organization as anti-Israel? SO how many countries at the UN are anti-Israel again? Like 95% or something? Certainly not the US. Or Canada. And some Pacific Island nations. If the ogres at the UN is so hideously anti-Israel, maybe then Israel should pull out of that wretched organization. Chart their own course. Be once again the shining beacon of light and all that. It was once. Could be again.

[Shaktimaan]

59. No the UN is not working against Israel.

Don't be ridiculous. The UN is nothing more than just a collection of dozens of member states and relevant offices and committees though. Meaning that the decisions that are made there are heavily influenced by political forces. People tend to assume that UN resolutions are made with the greater good in mind, associating them with judicial ideals like a lack of bias. We like to think that members vote according to their consciences or to further human rights and justice. The reality is that they vote according to what will most benefit their state. Or themselves in some well-known, sad cases. And at the UN the consensus among Muslim and Arab countries (including the influential oil producing ones), is that Israel stole Palestine and ethnically cleansed/massacred the Arabs who were living there. As a result, Israel is discriminated against at the UN. And it very much is, that can't be argued against with much validity.

Since Israel lacks a regional group (because the Arab states have excluded it from its geographic one) Israel immediately loses several key privileges all other states have. Like the right to go on the ballot to serve on the security council. Or the ability to participate in committees. (Israel is an honorary member of the US's group when meeting in New York, just not anywhere else.) So when the Rome Statute was being negotiated, for example, and a clause was added to specifically reference the I/P conflict, altering the law as it is understood in a way that benefits the Palestinians at Israel's expense, Israel was powerless to even raise a debate about it, having no right to participate in UN committees in Rome.

While rules condemning racism and other forms of discrimination were instituted from the beginning of UN history it wasn't until 1999 that anti-semitism made it onto the list. Which is probably why in the 70s the UN actually passed a resolution equating Zionism to racism. (It was nullified since then.)

At the UN World Conference against Racism 2001 in Durban, the proceedings quickly grew chaotic under demands from Arab and Muslim states to include items into their mission statement that many found anti-semitic, linking Zionism to racism. At the NGO forum delegates passed out copies of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the meeting ended in dischord with many people walking out, shocked by the level on anti-semitism on display. Many western states avoided going to the next conference held in 2009 for this reason.

If the ogres at the UN is so hideously anti-Israel, maybe then Israel should pull out of that wretched organization. Chart their own course. Be once again the shining beacon of light and all that. It was once. Could be again.

I assume that's a joke. Honestly I never understood that whole "love it or leave it" attitude. The UN, for all its flaws, is necessary and Israel's leaving would only serve to further empower it's enemies. If the UN is biased and discriminates against one of its members for political or cultural reasons then isn't criticizing it precisely the thing we should be doing?

There are more UN resolutions condemning Israel than there are resolutions referencing every other country combined. Clearly something os going on. And unless that something is that Israel has more evil within it than the remainder of the entire world's nations, concentrated within its tiny borders, (and it's probably not that), then we should be looking at how the UN operates.

[parkia00]

68. I must say Thank You!

To the very thought out and intelligent replies you have posted here on this thread and others in the chaotic I/P forum. Most of the time it's nothing much more than an online version of shouting, poking and grand standing. Me being guilty in said participation unfortunately... especially in the last few days. It is indeed true that the UN serves both national as well as collective regional interest of parties often at the expense of consciences and justice.

[pelsar]

71. yes Shaktimaan was very patient with you..however

something is not clear...when you wrote:
It is indeed true that the UN serves both national as well as collective regional interest of parties often at the expense of consciences and justice.

thats rather obvious, to even those shallow minded twits amongst us, but whats more interesting is....

is that sentence relevant to israel? and the resources concentrated on it.....

or do you still stand by your:
Only some shallow minded twats have a problem with the organization.

(its just for fun...its just an internet forum, there are no real consequences).

[parkia00]

72. Since you like stroking fires....

"It is indeed true that the UN serves both national as well as collective regional interest of parties often at the expense of consciences and justice."

What is it that is not clear about the statement? It's like Shaktimaan saying water is wet. And I agreed.
And you ?!<--?--->?+1-1? Having issues with it??

I cannot explain to you in any way without divulging in long winded form of which I rather not do on how the UN and human rights are relevant to Israel. Or to any other country on the planet. If you fell they are or are not, that's your problem and how you choose to deal with it is entirely up to you.

Yeah, I still do believe shallow minded twats have a problem with that organization or the myriad of other international organizations and international NGO's many of which concerns human rights. Nationalistic ideals or the mentality of "My Country Right Or Wrong" that seems to prevail often when one's faction is being pointed out for wrong doing dictates that said organization must be systematically dealt with from multiple fronts both in the media and locally.

But don't worry. Israel might soon be putting new rules to strangle funding of such annoying foreign NGO's. Life will be ... better?

[pelsar]

73. water is wet...and sometimes the obvious is lost here

i was just wondering if you felt you were now educated by Shaktimaan....

actually i've always believe its the intolerant/narrow minded "shallow minded twats" that have a problem when their own particular "religion" is criticized, get all pissed and rightious and go off on a few rants...your posts are a good example.

as far as "stoking the fires"....definitely, only then do the real opinions start coming out, then its gets interesting, the hypocrisy, the double standards....without that this place might as well be a local forum in an "old folks home."

[parkia00]

74. You really are coming out!

What exactly is "my religion" that you are talking about? Heaven forbid you think of me as being some "intolerant/narrow minded" religious zealot! Goodness gracious. And all this time I though I was an atheist! And what may you be suggesting are my "real opinions" towards Jews? Getting "all pissed and righteous" Like on a high horse?

[pelsar]

76. we all have religions.....

being an atheist does not mean you don't have your version of a religion...it appears to be connected to the UN, where its seem any criticism of it ,gets your wrath....and you start calling those posters names (twit?)....intolerance is one of the traits of the religious.

and my comments have nothing to do with jews, muslims or short people

[parkia00]

79. I didn't realise atheism was a religion!

You are indeed right! Always an eye opener this place! As for the UN; oh definitely not. As I said before, it serves special interests often at the expense of doing what is right. As for intolerance, well it's not just limited to the religious isn't it? Same special traits can be found amongst Nationalist or anyone who believes vehemently that their side is correct and any criticisms of it whether it be constructive criticism or otherwise is treated as the enemy and must be attacked.

[pelsar]

80. of course it is.....talk about being a 'twit'

atheism, is more like "jews for jesus" than any of the more traditional religions, in that you get to choose the pieces that you want and turn that into your diety.

take a look at the environmental movement with their Gaia and their "living earth"..hell they even have clothes so that you lie down on a glacier and become "one with it" Glacier Embracing Suit:
http://books.google.co.il/books?id=lt2f1wr9K6gC&pg=PA162&lpg=PA162&dq=Glacier+Embracing+Suit:&source=bl&ots=ekRGoF2_8z&sig=dMBiaVBCZdd75SsTZaIFfpr6n-g&hl=en&ei=gErDTpTfLJGDhQen-NzZDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=Glacier%20Embracing%20Suit%3A&f=false


and you have clearly shown one of the traits of religion
As for intolerance, well it's not just limited to the religious isn't it? Same special traits can be found amongst Nationalist or anyone who believes vehemently that their side is correct and any criticisms of it whether it be constructive criticism or otherwise is treated as the enemy and must be attacked.

yes, nationalism, can and does replace the standard religion as does "white power", black power, progressivism and so many other "ism" that take on holy an intolerant traits. You see it here in the I/P conflict where so many are willing to sacrifice their own values for the diety of 'self-determination" (civil rights, women's rights, minority rights....). its the intolerance of the "others" point of view that is for me the "tell tale sign of the religious the "believer"


i 'm not saying you bow down and pray to the divine UN god every day....

you may not have the fanatic view with your "religion" in that you can see some faults with the UN, but your reaction to the criticism of a UN agency was way way way out of a normal reaction to a criticism of a large very imperfect, bulky organization

[parkia00]

81. So Now I'm a Religious Zealot "Twit" ?

For my (religious !?!???) beliefs about human rights and for disagreeing with your version of it and how it should be and who it applies to. And you being the same fellow that says "its the intolerance of the "others" point of view that is for me the "tell tale sign of the religious the "believer":yoiks:

Hey it's you rowboat pal. You can rock it anyway you want. Just be careful not to let it capsize. On a slightly more serious note... since we both differ on the applications of human rights from who rightfully can apply to whom and in what way, aren't both of us then religious zealot "twits"?

"but your reaction to the criticism of a UN agency was way way way out of a normal reaction to a criticism"

Kinda like the criticisms labeled against every organization who dare utter a word against any Israeli actions by some parties. Got it. Twas very clear!

[pelsar]

83. i just said religious....you added the zealot

yes we are religious...both of us, here i agree, and we're probably twits as well, its the zealots part that is to be discussed.

every zealot believe their version is the most humane, best, version etc etc etc. The taliban believe they respect women more than any western civil rights women libber can...and they are 100% right, in their world and your "human rights" is totally screwed. Hell you probably don't even believe in stoning as punishment, do you?

i actually have tolerance for your version of the application of whom to condemn for human rights.... Not being the "zealot" that you are, we can look at your arguments, take them apart one by one and then you will 'see the light" admit you were wrong, and live a happier life.

as far as criticizing israel, of course you'll find zealots there, you'll also find an incredible amount of false information when it comes to criticizing israel, of which i believe it should all be called out, There are those that complain for being "caught"....and will claim that, that is "proof" that because they "dared to criticize israel, they are being shut up (as if the mossad is going to get them....maybe they will?)

hell i've been called "anti arab fanatic," or something like that for criticizing the PA......guess i "dared" to utter a few words against the Palestinians...

[parkia00]

85. Good points made there!

I guess no matter which side of an argument you are coming from, you will always anger someone. Whether it be members of the other party or even your own side for being too much or too little against or for some thing. This series of posts have been very enlightening.

I have no official religion except maybe my attraction to junkyards, junk shops and old industrial machinery. I guess I can be called religious in picking things from metal scrap dealers.

[Violet_Crumble]

82. I know what you mean. Me, I worship at Landover Baptist Church...

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/

;)

[pelsar]

84. i gotcha beat...

i'm a meteoritist...(we have yet to have a website)...basically we believe that sooner or later a nice big meteorite will come by and zap the earth, put us out of orbit, screw the whole eco, culture, borders and the organisms get to start all over again...

actually i'm not sure there is a "we"....i'm just getting the theory together and plan on being the grand marshal.....

________________
since you've come clean, perhaps you can tell me what exactly is "satanic cult under ware"...obviously its part of your church, and i'm sure there was at least one or two sermons on it?

[King_David]

55. +1

[Shaktimaan]

36. if the shoe fits

there certainly are agencies at the UN that do exactly that after all. For example, the UN Human Rights Council. How many states do you suppose they have condemned? If you guessed just one, then you're right. They make up for it by condemning it over and over again though.

[Ken Burch]

17. Calling for the UNESCO office to be bombed isn't free speech

It's incitement to terrorism.

UNESCO has done nothing to deserve violent retribution.

[King_David]

20. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

[parkia00]

22. Incitment to terrorism

sure is fun and funny if directed at people you hate. But if the reverse happened, my god I could imagine the response if some UN official demanded something somewhere in Israel should be bombed. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha?

[King_David]

24. ha ha ha ha

its an editorial cartoon.

something else they gotta learn along with gay rights and gender equality is freedom of the press ;)

[parkia00]

27. But yet...

Strangely it's the same people who will line up and bray loudly when the shoe is on the other foot. When some harmless cartoon against Jews or Israel in some right-wing Arab tabloid is printed.

[pelsar]

28. to understand freedom of the press......its quite easy

when an open society with freedom of the press prints editorials, there can be no doubt it will raise discussions and arguments etc....however when there is such an "editorial" from a society that does not have such freedoms, the "editorial" is in fact not an editorial....it will raise no discussions and arguments it is in fact part of the "education" system of that govt. Hence its fair game to call out governments when they print such stuff

this is called the basics in democracy and freedom of the press.

either you didn't know about it, perhaps you never learned about it....or perhaps you prefer not to know......
____

and of course the ironic thing of it all, was that the editorial was making fun of bibi and barak and they're preferred method of solving problems....
guess that kinda went by those who see things through color glasses

[parkia00]

29. So you will have no problems..

if such a harmless cartoon against Israel or even against Jews in printed in a right wing rag in countries with more democracy? Like say Turkey, or even some places in Western Europe. After all. it's just freedom of the press. Or is that different?

[shira]

30. LOL, a cartoon lampooning Erdogan wouldn't show up in their press. They're not free in Turkey...

...to mock their leadership as Israelis are in mocking Netanyahu and Barak.

Do you not understand the cartoon mocks Israel's leaders and is in no way incitement against UNESCO?

[pelsar]

33. welcome to the real world

thats the standard...

http://www.againstnazi.com/british_cartoons.htm
Winner of the British Political Cartoon Society 2003 Award

to answer your question...whether i like/dont like a particular cartoon/editorial from a western democratic country is to be expected, that is the essence of a democracy and free speech....the ability and right to piss of people and not be a mindless, numb, citizen that cannot express ones opinion because of fear.

seems to me, there are those that are so afraid of getting someone mad at them, that they have little understanding of what free speech is all about.

[azurnoir]

38. well unless Richard Falk does it n/t

[shira]

40. You think the Haaretz cartoon is incitement, not mocking Israel's leaders? n/t

[aranthus]

47. Maybe Ha'aretz needs to apologize

for running a cartoon that was too sophisticated for the average UN diplomat to understand? Or some DUers? Maybe they could avoid further diplomatic incidents by only running Dr. Seuss cartoons? . . . Nah. Wouldn't work.

[Violet_Crumble]

42. Exactly. The double standards displayed are incredible n/t

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vminfla]

32. Haaretz is a hate site then?

[bemildred]

3. Israel freezes UNESCO funding after Palestinian membership

Netanyahu decides to hold $2 million Israel transfers to UN cultural body yearly; Israel decided Tuesday to expedite settlement building in West Bank in response to PA's UNESCO membership.

By Barak Ravid

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decided Thursday to freeze funding to UNESCO after it had granted the Palestinians membership on Monday.

Israel transfers some $2 million to the UN cultural body yearly. A source in the Prime Minister's Office said that Netanyahu instructed to transfer those funds to initiatives working toward regional cooperation.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-freezes-unesco-funding-after-palestinian-membership-1.393498

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. So did the US and IIRC Canada did as well

[bemildred]

10. But is this the image we want to project for ourselves?

Getting into hissy-fits with UNESCO because it admitted the Palestinians? It looks juvenile and authoritarian. Sometimes you have to take it as well as dish it out, or you lose credibility. Never give an inch is a very brittle strategy.

The Israelis ought to be supporting Abbas, he's the one that wants to settle the dispute, He is working on having enough legitimacy to carry that out. A year ago, I would not have thought that possible. Israel won't get this chance again.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. Not sure it really matters...images of the US and others are already strongly held

There was a lot of hope for Obama in Europe and elsewhere, but that did not pan out. Much of it was unreasonable expectations since US government is much harder to move than parliamentary ones. Regardless there has been substantive disappointment.

[aranthus]

8. Officious nits are hysterical.

At least the UN still has some entertainment value.

[vminfla]

14. UNESCO officially condemns Israel for being progressive in allowing Haaretz' prejudice

Maybe UNESCO would have better results if it demanded that Haaretz mask its prejudice a little better instead.

[Fokker Trip]

15. I feel so sad for Israel. They are so wrongly persecuted.

They only ever do good and in return the world just hates on them. Its tragic, really.

Do Israels cheer-leaders ever stop to think that by enabling the view of Israel as the permanent victim they are only hurting Israel. The world is not buying Israel's dis-ingenuousness any more, and Israel needs support from other nations to survive. They cannot survive without external trade/aid.

This "Israel is always being persecuted" and "Israel can do no wrong" attitude smacks of the delusional behavior present in dis-functional families or cults.

In the long term this attitude will only harm Israel, it's already doing so now.

[vminfla]

18. Israel is being admonished for being a progressive democracy with a free press

But, your response...let's see...what words can I use to describe your attack.....a delusional behavior present in dysfunctional families or cults.

[Violet_Crumble]

41. The current Israeli govt is progressive?? In what altered universe?

There's nothing progressive about it at all...

[aranthus]

49. He didn't say the current government.

He was talking about the society as a whole. Israel is a Liberal Democracy with a free press. The UN doofus is complaining about Israel not reigning in its press. What's hysterical is that this particular cartoon is lampooning the current government over its anti-UNESCO stance and perceived propensity to engage in military solutions. What's Bib supposed to say? How about, Dear UNESCO, I'm sorry that a reputable member of the Israeli press made fun of me in a way that you were too stupid to understand?"

[Violet_Crumble]

62. Then I really have to ask what that poster thinks the word progressive means...

Mind you, I haven't had an answer from them on anything I've asked them yet, so if you want to define the word progressive for me, I'd be happy for you to do so. It's not a term that gets used when it comes to politics or society here, though if the term means something along the lines of leaning towards a more socialist society with publicly funded healthcare, education, etc, as well as there being no military power when it comes to society, then I'd call many Western European societies progressive, but not Israel.

The reason for that is because just like I don't think societies in the US nor here in Australia are progressive, Israel has quite a few things going on in its society that I don't think would be an indicator of a progressive society. The almost universal compulsory conscription is one of the obvious ones, as is the way the military and religion have become intertwined in civil society, exerting way too much power. As for having a free press, when has having a Military Censor been part of a free press? Israel has restricted the speech of Mordechai Vanunu. And let's not forget the banning of the word Nakba from Israeli Arab textbooks in schools.

While I'd agree that Israel would fall into the category of Liberal Democracy, calling it progressive is taking it a fair few steps too far...

[aranthus]

63. That's a very good question.

I assumed from the context that the poster meant "progressive" to mean the same thing as "Liberal" as in Liberal Democracy. Of course, you've pointed out the problem. The "Liberal" in "Liberal Democracy" isn't the same as "liberal" when referring to a position on the spectrum of Left of Center political thinking. And "progressive" can, and I think does, mean something different from either "Liberal" or "liberal". Although here in the States, it is more and more used (incorrectly I think) as a mere synonym of "liberal". On the other hand is it a mere synonym for "Socialist?" I'm not sure that it's that either. Your understanding is as good as any.

[Violet_Crumble]

64. Thanks....

I kind of get the impression from what I read at DU that it is used as meaning small 'l' liberal. From my old days studying political science, 'liberal democracy' is the definition used for countries that are representative democracies which have universal suffrage and free and fair elections. Just to muddy the waters a bit, 'Liberal' with the capitalisation is the name of our major conservative party, and I did get a rap across the knuckles when I first started posting in the I/P forum and told a poster that they sounded like a good Liberal, coz the mods knew what I was talking about even if the poster I'd said it to didn't realise what I'd equated them with :)

Yeah, I don't think 'progressive' is a synonym for socialist either. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd describe progressive as forward-thinking, visionary, and having an interest in the welfare of all citizens, but I'm not even sure that's close...

[holdencaufield]

21. The numbers don't lie

In recent years, Israel and the conflict was the subject of 76% of country-specific General Assembly resolutions, 50% of reports from the World Food Programme, 6% of United Nations Security Council resolutions and 6 of the 10 Emergency sessions. Nearly all those resolutions were critical of Israel and failed to address abuses by groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

The Commission on the Status of Women has only ever issued one Middle East -specific resolution -- condemning Israel.

Since the UN Human Rights Council was launched in mid-2006 and until the beginning of 2010, it issued 33 condemnatory resolutions; of these, half a dozen have concerned Burma and North Korea, while the other 27 have focused on condemning Israel, while absolving its attackers, including the Iranian-backed militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah In its first sixth months alone, the Council had passed nine resolutions condemning Israel, the only country which it had specifically condemned. Towards the Sudan on the other hand, a country with human rights abuses as documented by the Council's working groups, it has only ever expressed "deep concern."

In 1975, the UN equated the concept of Jewish Nationalism with racism and continues to sponsor the anti-Israeli hatefest known as "Durban".

Generating anti-Israel resolutions has become the primary focus of the UN for years and their raison d'être.

[Violet_Crumble]

65. Why did you take a quote from another site and change the wording?

Apart from it being bad form to copy a chunk of text from a source without referencing that's source, it becomes outright misleading when the wording of that text is changed in a way that changes its meaning.

Here's what you posted: 'In recent years, Israel and the conflict was the subject of 76% of country-specific General Assembly resolutions, 50% of reports from the World Food Programme, 6% of United Nations Security Council resolutions and 6 of the 10 Emergency sessions.'

Here's what I found when I tracked it down to its original source. I've bolded the part you changed in both the original and yr reposting...

'In recent years, the Middle East was the subject of 76% of country-specific General Assembly resolutions, 100% of the Human Rights Council resolutions, 100% of the Commission on the Status of Women resolutions, 50% of reports from the World Food Programme, 6% of United Nations Security Council resolutions and 6 of the 10 Emergency sessions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel,_Palestine,_and_the_United_Nations

[parkia00]

75. Good Catch.

Wonder if we will get an explanation?

[azurnoir]

77. It is always wise when using wiki as your source to include

This page was last modified on 12 November 2011 at 05:28.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel,_Palestine,_and_the_United_Nations

it helps keep a perspective on 'history' getting edited :)

[Violet_Crumble]

78. That bit hadn't been edited at Wiki.

What's appearing in the Wiki article has been there unchanged for a long time. If the poster I replied to copied that line from Wiki, they deliberately changed the wording. If they copied it from some other site that's copied it from Wiki, then the other site has deliberately changed the wording. But it's got nothing to do with Wiki edits...

[CJvR]

43. Seems about...

...as stupid as the Arab demand for a Danish appology over the Muhammed carton chrisis. Perhaps the Islamist stupidity is contageous?

[Violet_Crumble]

67. About as stupid as Israel demanding apologies for cartoons...

Perhaps it's the Israeli stupidity is contageous?

[pelsar]

44. always an eye-opener this place.

seems once again we find many prefer censorship to freedom of the press......

the idiocy displayed on this particular series of post would be "mind boggling" but i've seen it before, so its less than surprising. The "need" to make israel guilty that it even extends to israels leading liberal paper is amazing.

i would have liked to believe that if haaretz printed it, that all those nice "pro palestenian" posters who love to quote articles from haartez when its criticizing Israel policies, would have thought for a second before the "knee-jerk" reaction of "see, more evidence of how evil the israeli society is" syndrome"

a simple cartoon that makes fun of barak and bibi gets turned around as some kind of "incitement to terrorism".....

always an eye-opener this place. (people seeming to prefer reducing "freedom of the press" i.e. censorship as part of the israeli society. preferring a less liberal israel....)