The U.N.'s Dirty Little Secret

[pistoff democrat]

Last week, the U.N. once again proved itself incapable of rising to the moral challenges embraced in its founding Charter: "tolerance," "the dignity and worth of the human person" and "equal rights." A draft resolution on anti-Semitism--which would have been a first in the U.N.'s 58-year history--was withdrawn in the face of Arab and Muslim opposition.

Daily incidents of anti-Semitic violence around the globe are reported in the media. Yet while leaders of the Free World condemn synagogue bombings in Turkey, firebombings of Jewish schools in France, and the hate speech of Malaysia's president who now heads the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the U.N. moves in the opposite direction, encouraging the proliferation of this centuries-old hatred.

In marked contrast, other forms of intolerance continue to consume the U.N.'s attention and resources. A special rapporteur mandated by the U.N. Commission on Human Rights reports regularly to the U.N. on "discrimination against Muslims and Arab peoples in various parts of the world" including any "physical assaults and attacks against their places of worship, cultural centers, businesses and properties." An entire 2003 Commission resolution "combating defamation of religions," mentions only prejudice against Muslims, Arabs and Islam.

cut

The U.N. is an organization founded on the ashes of the Jewish people, and whose core human rights principles were drafted from the lessons of the Holocaust. The inability of the organization to address seriously one of the very evils it was intended to prevent is a scandal of global proportions. In 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declared, "disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind." Fifty-five years later the outrage is gone, the silence of the U.N. when it comes to anti-Semitism is deafening, and the only ones benefiting are those planning future barbarous acts against Jews everywhere.


http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004398

[Maple]

1. The UN

came out of the League of Nations, founded long before WWII.

And Israel itself wouldn't exist if it weren't for the UN.

[bluesoul]

2. Apparently they established it

with the intention of destroying it. At least certain people here think so...

[pistoff democrat]

5. Puh-leeze

The paragraph to which you refer is this?

"The U.N. is an organization founded on the ashes of the Jewish people, and whose core human rights principles were drafted from the lessons of the Holocaust. The inability of the organization to address seriously one of the very evils it was intended to prevent is a scandal of global proportions. In 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declared, "disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind." Fifty-five years later the outrage is gone, the silence of the U.N. when it comes to anti-Semitism is deafening, and the only ones benefiting are those planning future barbarous acts against Jews everywhere."

From that you jump to "Apparently they established it with the intention of destroying it..."


offensive; sad and truly offensive

[bluesoul]

7. I didn't say that

Muddle did. I only said what certain people here implied...

If that's offensive to you, complain to Muddle

[pistoff democrat]

9. Link

You just posted it.

When you accuse Muddle, or anyone else here of good will, provide a link.

[edzontar]

11. Here is your link....

Go to the enormous thread:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=36880#37070

And scroll down to post 75.

Muddle's "theory" becomes the subject of a quite spirited exchange.

Then come back and let us know what you REALLLY think about this argument.

[pistoff democrat]

12. Thank you for the link.

From my post, bluesoul jumped to "Apparently they established it with the intention of destroying it..." which seems clear enough that he was stating that the UN established Israel with the intent of destroying it. I found that offensive.

Upon requesting a link to bluesoul's attack on Muddle, you provided me with the following (post 75): "They "addressed" the question of Israel knowing full well Israel would be attacked and likely overwhelmed. What do YOU think they wanted?"

Per usual, I was being idealistic and Muddle was being realistic. Muddle, not I, was in fact correct that it is clear the UN hoped the massive Arab armies would immediately drive Israel into the sea. Luckily, my idealism triumphed and Israel beat back the 1948 war on poor little Israel.

I am aware that my idealism clouds things sometimes; just call me Don Quixote.

[bluesoul]

15. That is realistic?!?

THat UN hoped that Israel would be driven into the sea? Oh my, I see we have two people now agreing with such absurd conspiracy theories. Let me leave it at that...

[pistoff democrat]

4. Israel wouldn't exist without the Shoah.

The U.N., by a very close vote, made the land into a state.

[bluesoul]

6. And now it's time

that Palestinians get the same with all the rights and land that belongs to them (West Bank, Gaza ...)

[mobuto]

8. What do you mean "came out of the League of Nations?"

I don't see that at all. The UN and the League of Nations had somewhat similar objectives, but that's about where the similarity ends. The organization is totally different.

[pistoff democrat]

10. I'm glad you corrected that one.

Thanks.

[On the Road]

3. Well, I Would Like to See the Text First

Yes, it should be a no-brainer to condemn anti-Semitism. But once you examine the details, a lot of supposed anti-Semitism starts to look a little more like anti-Zionism (which is itself a kind of ethinic purism) or anti-occupation.

Take this paragraph:

"...on Nov. 26 a resolution condemning terrorist attacks on Israeli children failed to make it through the General Assembly while one on Palestinian children was adopted with only four states opposed."

You would think that both resolutions should be approved, and both kinds of attacks condemned. But occupying powers always want to create moral equivalence, if not moral superiority. They should not be given it. Regardless of the intent, from a practical point of view condemning both sides equally is a statement of neutrality towards the occupation.

Once Israel stops the occupation, it has a right to demand international condemnation of any further attacks. Not before.

[Darranar]

13. Why?

Is it not true that killing and brutalizing innocent civilians is immoral and deserves to be condemned, regardless of who does it, and regardless of past actions by others?

Why do atrocities excuse atrocities? Why is a cessation of certain atrocities necessary form a condemnation of ALL atrocities?

[Paschall]

14. That paragraph (this op-ed) is built on a lie

But that's typical of the WSJ editorial page.

The resolution that paragraph is referring to was only a draft and passed only by the UN Social etc. committee. The resolution passed in plenary made no distinction between Israeli and Palestinian children.

The Israeli resolution didn't pass in committee because it was withdrawn by Israel.

It would be nice if this canard would die. But I guess that's too much expect from the extreme right-wingers at the likes of the WSJ.

See this post for further background