The Bottom Line: It's UN-believable (Jpost OpEd)

[JohnLocke]

The Bottom Line: UN-believable
by Liat Collins - Jerusalem Post
Thursday, February 5, 2003

Israel certainly pays a price for being a member of the United Nations. Not the cost of condemnations. The real cost: $15.8 million a year.
Of course, some of that goes to the noble cause of peace-keeping - in places like Sierra Leone, East Timor, the Congo, and Eritrea.
According to a special report by Yediot Aharonot's Eitan Amit, last year Israel's contribution to the upkeep of UN forces in Sierra Leone amounted to nearly $2m.
(...)
Given that in an average year, the UN General Assembly passes some 17 or 18 openly anti-Israel motions, it turns out that Israel is, in effect, "paying" close to $1m. per motion. We certainly get our money's worth.
(...)
Among the 22 countries that are members of both the Arab League and the UN, only oil-rich Saudi Arabia pays more than Israel. We pay three times as much as petroleum producers Iran and Kuwait; four times as much as Egypt; 12 times as much as Syria, and 20 times what Lebanon has to pay.
The 22 Arab League states together contribute just 1.773% of the UN budget. (The Palestinians, with observer status, don't pay a cent.)
Until about two years ago, Israel paid less than $2m. a year and the US funded more than 25% of the UN's budget. When the US revolted and decided to pay only 22%, Madeleine Albright asked some of the US's friends to split the cost. Israel was among those who paid the price of friendship.
But how could it refuse? After all, other than Micronesia and the Marshall Islands, the US is the only friend we have at the "dear" old UN.

Read the rest here.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[GabysPoppy]

4. A question Mr. Wonk

Do you believe Jonathon Pollard should remain in jail or be paroled?

[Wonk]

6. Waaayyy off topic. nt

[GabysPoppy]

7. nevermind

[Blitz]

5. Ah, condemnation through association

The game the whole family can play!! I expect that many, many people of various political persuasions agree with me. Not that agreement by third parties makes my views any more or less valid.

[JasonDeter]

3. This is OUTRAGEOUS!

Egypt gets 3 BILLION taxpayer dollars and they can't pay UN dues!? No dues NO VOTE should be the policy.

[cprise]

39. Credibility is expensive

Especially if you have squandered any real credibility you had in simultaneous apartheid policies and posturing as a democracy.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[JohnLocke]

9. What, bluesoul?

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[JohnLocke]

11. What, now? The above post was deleted before I could see it.

[bluesoul]

13. Jpost and it's RW BS

ain't worth a second of my attention, that's put mildly....

[JohnLocke]

15. The old standby

Call anything that doesn't conform to one's opinions "right wing" or "left wing." Many of us prefer a rebuttal, but alas, some don't think so.

[bluesoul]

16. LOL

If Jpost is not Right wing, then you really have interesting criteria for what is progressive/left wing/liberal. Here in Europe they're very much to the right.

Interesting piece even from the Israeli view about Jpost:

This is what she reported: "Shimon Peres, the Israeli Foreign Minister, has declared war on the right-wing Jerusalem Post newspaper by canceling 1,000 ministry subscriptions, because the paper is undermining the government's peace efforts. Mr. Peres, the chief architect of the Gaza-Jericho accord, has been angered by the antagonistic attitude taken by the paper to Israel's deal with the Palestine Liberation Organization.

"Mr. Peres is not concerned about the Jerusalem Post's influence on domestic public opinion, but rather the effect it may have on opinion abroad. As the only Israeli English-language daily, it is an international opinion-former. The paper has been distributed free at Israeli embassies. The Jerusalem Post, which used to have a dove-ish editorial line, supporting the Labor Party, moved to the far right under Conrad Black, who bought the 'Post' in 1989 when the hawkish Likud party was in power. Mr. Black also owns the Daily and Sunday Telegraph.

[Forkboy]

17. pot...meet kettle

JohnLocke (1000+ posts) Sun Feb-01-04 12:09 AM
Response to Original message

35. Fuck Al-Jazeera
Al Jazeera should be banned from this forum.

As you say John,"Many of us prefer a rebuttal, but alas, some don't think so."

[MikeGalos]

18. Seems fair

While the Jerusalem Post is not a leftist publication it IS a widely read mainstream press outlet with a very good history of accurate reporting with a slant similar to most mainstream US publications (that is, slightly right of what I'd call center). It's so far from being the "Israeli Right-wing outlet" as to be laughable. Even real rightist Israeli news outlets like Arutz-7 are more journalistically valid than even the official PA state-run news and, for that matter, less racist and less right-wing).

Al-Jazeera may be the most reputable and moderate news outlet in the Arab world, that's hardly saying much when they're being compared to state papers that publish stories on how Jews use Moslem children's blood to make matzoh for Passover (Egypt) or Moslem adolescent's dried blood to make hamentaschen for Purim (Syria).

What we're seeing here is like calling for a ban on the New York Times as a radical right-wing source because they have a business section while claiming Granma and the Daily Worker as mainstream.

[bluesoul]

19. Yet some would like to even

ban the most moderate Arab sources. So NO Arab sources would be an option for them. Very telling...

[Muddleoftheroad]

21. So what are the

The sources controled by anti-Israeli/anti-Semitic forces or the ones that just openly hate Israel?

[MikeGalos]

23. Well let's see

There are people who want to ban any Israeli paper that isn't leftist.
There are people who want to ban any Arab paper that isn't leftist.

If that were done, there'd be a lot of Israeli papers left. There'd be NO Arab papers left. Well, except for some Arab-Israeli papers.

Perhaps the problem is a dearth of anything but right-wing sources in the Arab world.

[Forkboy]

24. I dont want to see any sources banned

but I reserve the right to ridicule the right-wing sources when we see them :)

[MikeGalos]

25. I have no problem

with banning David Duke's websites.

Of course, when facts are actually documented, I'll accept any source. It's the right-wing source quoting a right-wing government press release and someone presenting THAT as a fact that I have a problem with (like all the "Factual stories" about the "Jenin Massacre" that turned out to be just PA propaganda that people believed not because there were facts but because they wanted the stories to be true)

[Forkboy]

26. I wouldn't even mind seeing Duke's site allowed

I firmly believe that shining a bright light on that kind of thinking is the best way to deal with it.Don't let them hide in the shadows.

I can,of course,understand why some might not agree with that,but that's my feeling anyways.

[Jim Sagle]

28. Luckily your views are not in force here.

[Forkboy]

29. What views

that rascism should be exposed?

You dont share that view?

[David__77]

30. "Banning" it only will strengthen.

I prefer to harass and hound these forces, not give them a propaganda point to use as a recruiting rallying cry. That's what would happen. In high school, I remember the fascist skinheads and they tried to make an appeal based on being "rebels" or "outlaws." They need to confronted in the streets, but let their filth hang in the open--it can be better assailed in this way.

[Forkboy]

31. I guess I'm not alone in my views

eh,Jim?

[Jim Sagle]

34. But they're not in force, thank goodness.

[Forkboy]

37. Thank goodness people against racism aren't in force?

:shrug:

[GabysPoppy]

38. We are talking about Nazi skinheads here, aren't we?

You did change the topic I hope.

[Forkboy]

40. er,no

I said "I firmly believe that shining a bright light on that kind of thinking is the best way to deal with it.Don't let them hide in the shadows."

Jim then replied "Luckily your views are not in force here."

It would seem Jim is against people who are against racism.I doubt that to be the case,but that's what it sounds like.

[GabysPoppy]

41. Your response #31 seems to contradict yourself

n/t necessary

[Forkboy]

42. I have no idea what you're even talking about

some text WOULD be necessary in this case.

Though I suspect the wait may not be worth it...

[GabysPoppy]

43. What was difficult about response # 31

The one you responded to is numbered #30.

I hope that helps you a bit.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[GabysPoppy]

45. Smart choice

I don't blame you.

[Forkboy]

46. ok GP,whatever you say

:eyes:

[GabysPoppy]

35. David

No offense but you're welcome to have them in your neighborhood. I'd prefer these bastards stay away from mine.

[BrokenSegue]

49. That's the best idea I've heard All day

[GabysPoppy]

27. What do you think of this from an Arabic source?

The Nineteen Lions

By the One Who Allows the seas to scream, the waves to crash, the winds to howl: we will never rest whilst our homes are flooded by the blood of our slaughtered children. On a historic sunny September morning in 2001, a few men, armed with little more than their faith, brought the greatest modern military might to her knees.

snip

So where are the impoverished, psychotic lunatics the Western media would like us to believe? No, these were men who could no longer sit back and watch the rape and humiliation of our sisters. They understood that to do nothing to stop this rape, was tantamount to being the rapist himself. These men realized that to liberate Muslim lands from the claws of the enemies of Allah, required the blood and sacrifice of Martyrs.

snip

http://www.clearguidance.com/article.php?id=1069

You can read the rest here if you have the stomach for it.

[JohnLocke]

32. No comparison, Forkboy.

[Forkboy]

33. I think there is

in fact I'd say the two are damn near exactly the same.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[MAlibdem]

12. And how could we forget the motion that labeled Zionism="racism" (n/t)

[drdon326]

14. The saddest day in UN history....

someone mentioned a new UN....ONLY DEMOCRACIES....
Works for me.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[Blitz]

22. I believe I mentioned it in post #1

in this thread. I wish I knew what was wrong with that post.

[BrokenSegue]

50. Yeah, but

The UN needs to arbitrate between all nations willing to make peace excluding such large nations as China will be a problem when we try to make treaties and the like.
As the old Kezi-Kiamora said
"Leave one out and the rest of the pot begins to boil without the noodles.

[JohnLocke]

47. Kick

[BrokenSegue]

48. Math?

This may have been said, I haven't read all of the posts...but,

I don't understand how they arrived at this line.
"Given that in an average year, the UN General Assembly passes some 17 or 18 openly anti-Israel motions, it turns out that Israel is, in effect, "paying" close to $1m. per motion. We certainly get our money's worth. "

It costs nothing to pass motions and nearly nothing to hold sessions so how could it cost 1 million dollars to pass a motion. Most of the UN's budget goes to other things like humanitarian aid, peacekeeping and foreign facilities. That line is abusing math to make it look like Israel is being duped into funding attacks on its self. Those attacks would happen anyways, the money Israel pays tot he UN is so it may protect itself from such attacks and it acts as a donation to the welfare of the world.

"The 22 Arab League states together contribute just 1.773% of the UN budget"
I don't see how that's relevant...There is an equation to determine the fees required. It isn't the UN being unfair toward Israel.


But thanks JohnLocke for bringing this to the forefront. I feel more informed now.

As the old Techno song goes...
"Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto,
Mata ah-oo hima de
Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto,
Himitsu wo shiri tai"

I think we can learn from that... His parts were made in Japan. He is a modern man. Whose brain is IBM. That songs boils of globalism. Which we must fight to the bitter and cold end. Israel is truly a product of a world that has expanded to fast and the conflict is an air pocket that is relieving pressure. I think I've gone off on a tangent so, I'll leave you with this...
"Oh, baby, baby, it's a wild world
It's hard to get by just upon a smile
Oh, baby, baby, it's a wild world
I'll always remember you like a child, girl "
-By...Yes you guessed it...a Muslim
The artist formerly known as Cat Stevens
Now that I think about it I really haven't said much.

[JohnLocke]

51. Whoa, dude.

"The 22 Arab League states together contribute just 1.773% of the UN budget." I don't see how that's relevant...There is an equation to determine the fees required. It isn't the UN being unfair toward Israel.
-----------------
Sure it is. The disproportionate criticism Israel as a result of obsessive "diplomats" from Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, etc., is unwarrented, because Israel contributes far more to the UN and all it turns into is a not-so-cleverly veiled Jew-bashing forum.

[Darranar]

52. What about the disproportionate aid Israel gets from the US?

[JohnLocke]

54. It's disproportionate for a reason.

[BrokenSegue]

55. What reason is that?

[JohnLocke]

56. The U.S. has an interest in supporting Israel.

[Darranar]

57. You're right; it does...

The US has a very great interest in controlling the Middle East, because of its strategic location and resources, and Israel helps it attain that objective.

Whether or not that goal is a righteous one is another matter, as is the question of whether it is actually in the interests of the American people or simply in the interests of a few in the American elite.

[JohnLocke]

58. It is in the interests of the greater good to support Israel.

[Darranar]

59. Care to elaborate on that?

[BrokenSegue]

53. Not quite sure...

Are you saying that by giving more money Israel should have more say.
Everyone (Excepting security councel,that's another topic) should have equal power. So, 4 countries should have more of a say than 1. Sounds fair to me. That's democracy for you. you want it you got it. System works the same here. Rich pay more tax but have same number of votes. Poor pass laws against rich, it may not be fair though, but that doesn't mean rich should have more votes.
Finally that's not all the UN does. In fact it does much more outside of those grand meetings that get all the press.

As Edwin A Abbot says...
"But still I couldn't understand the meaning of what my teacher had told me concerning "light" and "shade" and "perspective"; and I didn't hesitate to put my difficulties before him"
5 points to the person who names the book. Plus much respect(Unless you cheated.)

Oh yeah also... Don't call me "dude". It makes me cry.

[Comadreja]

60. Bluff and bluster

"The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war." Israeli General Matityahu Peled, Haaretz, 19 March 1972.