Viability of the UN

[Skyweir]

i love the UN .. as much as I love the original intent of the League of Nations.

We need an international body and from where I sit the UN is the most if not the only viable option.

The problem the UN faces is with the most powerful nations who provide the UN with mandated power .. and the more they thumb their noses at the UN .. the less credibility and power the UN retains.

The example that the leading nations provide affect the more numerous less powerful nations and their willingness to observe UN direction ..

[Avatar]

Agreed. The concept is great. But as long as they get to pick and choose whose advantage is served, they might as well not exist.

Should the most powerful nations, as Skyweir suggests, set a better example, rather than use the UN as an arm of their own policies, we would be a lot closer to reaching that ideal.

--Avatar

[Brinn]

The UN should be replaced by a coalition of nations who are fundamentally democratic or who have representative government. In this way nations that do not provide a voice to their people will not be given a voice in world affairs. I'm getting a liitle tired of being lectured on human rights abuses by serial abusers Sudan, China, Cuba, Libya, Etc...

[Skyweir]

The UN should be replaced by a coalition of nations who are fundamentally democratic or who have representative government. In this way nations that do not provide a voice to their people will not be given a voice in world affairs. I'm getting a liitle tired of being lectured on human rights abuses by serial abusers Sudan, China, Cuba, Libya, Etc...

oh i see .. a "coalition of the willing" kind of body?

I do agree and like the idea of membershio being limited to nations who possess a form of representative government .. but there would be some debate over the definition of representative government,

As for being tired of being lectured .. I do not tire from being lectured about my nations lack of observance of human rights issues .. regardless of who is doing the lecturing ..

where there are human rights abuses .. no matter who is pointing the finger .. they need to be highlighted!

and shame on us for having them .. and tolerating human rights abuses within our own purported superior "democratic" systems.

I think we give it plenty .. and if we deserve it .. we should also take it .. on the chin .. with a modicum of decency!

Those pointing the finger also have to deal with their own human rights observances .. in order to gain and retain respectability ..

and credibility.

The UN is capable .. but they require the weight of intenational support!

or without it .. the same will occur of any international body it is planned to replace it with.

Regardless .. at the end of the day .. the planet requires an international body .. and that body must be "REPRESENTATIVE" ..

as for the example of the leading nations of the world .. per the developed democracies .. yes they do need to lead with example.

How can they credibly claim to be superior or standing on higher ground if they do not!

cheers

[dennisrwood]

the UN is a pipe dream. there are too many nations that could give a fig about doing what;s right. and the UN seems too busy passing votes about how Israel should really stop defending themselves.

[Skyweir]

well that summarises only a propagandised view of the UN imo ..

Israel is not the only matter on the UN table. Again with the anti-semetic slurs .. I think we can do better than that.

The UN is an established infrastructure concerned and operative in a host of international matters.

The UN are responsible for securing multi-lateral agreements on issues affecting international health and safety, political and economic fairnes. The UN declaration of Human Rights is pivotal legislation that holds governments accountable for abuses protected by national laws.

Under the auspices of the UN .. we have established the Security Council, peace making, peace keeping and humanitarian assistance powers.

We have International Tribunals where matters arising from and affected by UN established international law are heard and determined.

The UN is not a pipe dream, but it has suffered damage from select nations who disregard or disrespect the UN mandate.

No system is entirely perfect and flawless, I am not suggesting that the UN can not be refined. I am however suggesting that the UN is sound.

When the UN speaks out against a particular nation it is inevitable I suppose to react defensively and resent that criticism.

The very fact that there is a move in todays political climate to discredit the UN .. to me this movement is led by those few nations and players that have the most to answer for.

We need to give a fig about this body imo .. and what will make the UN as effective as intended is international support!

It is afterall an international body formed to maintain global peace and international justice.

[Brinn]

IMHO it is far from simple propaganda. I reprint a speech by Hudson institute fellow and Columbia University Law professor Anne Bayefsky delivered at the UN conference for confronting anti-semitism.

I posted this earlier in this very thread but I reprint it here because I think it is one of the most eloquent and compelling speeches I have seen addressing the subject. IMHO, it provides compelling evidence that the UN, if not anti-semitic in itself, has been used by member nations to provide an anti-semitic platform.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you at this first U.N. conference on anti-Semitism, which is being convened six decades after the organization's creation. My thanks to the U.N. organizers and in particular Shashi Tharoor [the undersecretary-general for communications and public information] for their initiative and to the secretary-general for his willingness to engage.

This meeting occurs at a point when the relationship between Jews and the United Nations is at an all-time low. The U.N. took root in the ashes of the Jewish people, and according to its charter was to flower on the strength of a commitment to tolerance and equality for all men and women and of nations large and small. Today, however, the U.N. provides a platform for those who cast the victims of the Nazis as the Nazi counterparts of the 21st century. The U.N. has become the leading global purveyor of anti-Semitism--intolerance and inequality against the Jewish people and its state.

Not only have many of the U.N. members most responsible for this state of affairs rendered their own countries Judenrein, they have succeeded in almost entirely expunging concern about Jew-hatred from the U.N. docket. From 1965, when anti-Semitism was deliberately excluded from a treaty on racial discrimination, to last fall, when a proposal for a General Assembly resolution on anti-Semitism was withdrawn after Ireland capitulated to Arab and Muslim opposition, mention of anti-Semitism has continually ground the wheels of U.N.-led multilateralism to a halt.

There has never been a U.N. resolution specifically on anti-Semitism or a single report to a U.N. body dedicated to discrimination against Jews, in contrast to annual resolutions and reports focusing on the defamation of Islam and discrimination against Muslims and Arabs. Instead there was Durban--the 2001 U.N. World Conference "Against Racism," which was a breeding ground and global soapbox for anti-Semites. When it was over U.N. officials and member states turned the Durban Declaration into the centerpiece of the U.N.'s antiracism agenda--allowing Durban follow-up resolutions to become a continuing battlefield over U.N. concern with anti-Semitism.

Not atypical is the public dialogue in the U.N.'s top human rights body--the Commission on Human Rights--where this past April the Pakistani ambassador, speaking on behalf of the 56 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, unashamedly disputed that anti-Semitism was about Jews.

For Jews, however, ignorance is not an option. Anti-Semitism is about intolerance and discrimination directed at Jews--both individually and collectively. It concerns both individual human rights and the group right to self-determination--realized in the state of Israel.
What does discrimination against the Jewish state mean? It means refusing to admit only Israel to the vital negotiating sessions of regional groups held daily during U.N. Commission on Human Rights meetings. It means devoting six of the 10 emergency sessions ever held by the General Assembly to Israel. It means transforming the 10th emergency session into a permanent tribunal--which has now been reconvened 12 times since 1997. By contrast, no emergency session was ever held on the Rwandan genocide, estimated to have killed a million people, or the ethnic cleansing of tens of thousands in the former Yugoslavia, or the death of millions over the past two decades of atrocities in Sudan. That's discrimination.

The record of the Secretariat is more of the same. In November 2003, Secretary-General Kofi Annan issued a report on Israel's security fence, detailing the purported harm to Palestinians without describing one terrorist act against Israelis which preceded the fence's construction. Recently, the secretary-general strongly condemned Israel for destroying homes in southern Gaza without mentioning the arms-smuggling tunnels operating beneath them. When Israel successfully targeted Hamas terrorist Abdel Aziz Rantissi with no civilian casualties, the secretary-general denounced Israel for an "extrajudicial" killing. But when faced with the 2004 report of the U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions detailing the murder of more than 3,000 Brazilian civilians shot at close range by police, Mr. Annan chose silence. That's discrimination.

At the U.N., the language of human rights is hijacked not only to discriminate but to demonize the Jewish target. More than one quarter of the resolutions condemning a state's human rights violations adopted by the commission over 40 years have been directed at Israel. But there has never been a single resolution about the decades-long repression of the civil and political rights of 1.3 billion people in China, or the million female migrant workers in Saudi Arabia kept as virtual slaves, or the virulent racism which has brought 600,000 people to the brink of starvation in Zimbabwe. Every year, U.N. bodies are required to produce at least 25 reports on alleged human rights violations by Israel, but not one on an Iranian criminal justice system which mandates punishments like crucifixion, stoning and cross-amputation of right hand and left foot. This is not legitimate critique of states with equal or worse human rights records. It is demonization of the Jewish state.

As Israelis are demonized at the U.N., so Palestinians and their cause are deified. Every year the U.N. marks Nov. 29 as the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People--the day the U.N. partitioned the British Palestine mandate and which Arabs often style as the onset of al nakba or the "catastrophe" of the creation of the state of Israel. In 2002, the anniversary of the vote that survivors of the concentration camps celebrated, was described by Secretary-General Annan as "a day of mourning and a day of grief."

In 2003 the representatives of over 100 member states stood along with the secretary-general, before a map predating the state of Israel, for a moment of silence "for all those who had given their lives for the Palestinian people"--which would include suicide bombers. Similarly, U.N. rapporteur John Dugard has described Palestinian terrorists as "tough" and their efforts as characterized by "determination, daring, and success." A commission resolution for the past three years has legitimized the Palestinian use of "all available means including armed struggle"--an absolution for terrorist methods which would never be applied to the self-determination claims of Chechens or Basques.

Although Palestinian self-determination is equally justified, the connection between demonizing Israelis and sanctifying Palestinians makes it clear that the core issue is not the stated cause of Palestinian suffering. For there are no U.N. resolutions deploring the practice of encouraging Palestinian children to glorify and emulate suicide bombers, or the use of the Palestinian population as human shields, or the refusal by the vast majority of Arab states to integrate Palestinian refugees into their societies and to offer them the benefits of citizenship. Palestinians are lionized at the U.N. because they are the perceived antidote to what U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi called the great poison of the Middle East--the existence and resilience of the Jewish state.
Of course, anti-Semitism takes other forms at the U.N. Over the past decade at the commission, Syria announced that yeshivas train rabbis to instill racist hatred in their pupils. Palestinian representatives claimed that Israelis can happily celebrate religious holidays like Yom Kippur only by shedding Palestinian blood, and accused Israel of injecting 300 Palestinian children with HIV-positive blood.

U.N.-led anti-Semitism moves from the demonization of Jews to the disqualification of Jewish victimhood: refusing to recognize Jewish suffering by virtue of their ethnic and national identity. In 2003 a General Assembly resolution concerned with the welfare of Israeli children failed (though one on Palestinian children passed handily) because it proved impossible to gain enough support for the word Israeli appearing before the word children. The mandate of the U.N. special rapporteur on the "Palestinian territories", set over a decade ago, is to investigate only "Israel's violations of . . . international law" and not to consider human-rights violations by Palestinians in Israel.

It follows in U.N. logic that nonvictims aren't really supposed to fight back. One after another concrete Israeli response to terrorism is denounced by the secretary-general and member states as illegal. But killing members of the command-and-control structure of a terrorist organization, when there is no disproportionate use of force, and arrest is impossible, is not illegal. Homes used by terrorists in the midst of combat are legitimate military targets. A nonviolent, temporary separation of parties to a conflict on disputed territory by a security fence, which is sensitive to minimizing hardships, is a legitimate response to Israel's international legal obligations to protect its citizens from crimes against humanity. In effect, the U.N. moves to pin the arms of Jewish targets behind their backs while the terrorists take aim.

The U.N.'s preferred imagery for this phenomenon is of a cycle of violence. It is claimed that the cycle must be broken--every time Israelis raises a hand. But just as the symbol of the cycle is chosen because it has no beginning, it is devastating to the cause of peace because it denies the possibility of an end. The Nuremberg Tribunal taught us that crimes are not committed by abstract entities.

The perpetrators of anti-Semitism today are the preachers in mosques who exhort their followers to blow up Jews. They are the authors of Palestinian Authority textbooks that teach a new generation to hate Jews and admire their killers. They are the television producers and official benefactors in authoritarian regimes like Syria or Egypt who manufacture and distribute programming that depicts Jews as bloodthirsty world conspirators.
Listen, however, to the words of the secretary-general in response to two suicide bombings which took place in Jerusalem this year, killing 19 and wounding 110: "Once again, violence and terror have claimed innocent lives in the Middle East. Once again, I condemn those who resort to such methods." "The Secretary General condemns the suicide bombing Sunday in Jerusalem. The deliberate targeting of civilians is a heinous crime and cannot be justified by any cause." Refusing to name the perpetrators, Mr. Secretary-General, Teflon terrorism, is a green light to strike again.

Perhaps more than any other, the big lie that fuels anti-Semitism today is the U.N.-promoted claim that the root cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the occupation of Palestinian land. According to U.N. revisionism, the occupation materialized in a vacuum. In reality, Israel occupies land taken in a war which was forced upon it by neighbors who sought to destroy it. It is a state of occupation which Israelis themselves have repeatedly sought to end through negotiations over permanent borders. It is a state in which any abuses are closely monitored by Israel's independent judiciary. But ultimately, it is a situation which is the responsibility of the rejectionists of Jewish self-determination among Palestinians and their Arab and Muslim brethren--who have rendered the Palestinian civilian population hostage to their violent and anti-Semitic ambitions.

There are those who would still deny the existence of anti-Semitism at the U.N. by pointing to a range of motivations in U.N. corridors including commercial interests, regional politics, preventing scrutiny of human rights violations closer to home, or enhancement of individual careers. U.N. actors and supporters remain almost uniformly in denial of the nature of the pathogen coursing through these halls. They ignore the infection and applaud the host, forgetting that the cancer which kills the organism will take with it both the good and the bad.

The relative distribution of naiveté, cowardice, opportunism, and anti-Semitism, however, matters little to Noam and Matan Ohayon, ages 4 and 5, shot to death through their mother's body in their home in northern Israel while she tried to shield them from a gunman of Yasser Arafat's al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. The terrible consequences of these combined motivations mobilized and empowered within U.N. chambers are the same.

The inability of the U.N. to confront the corruption of its agenda dooms this organization's success as an essential agent of equality or dignity or democratization.
This conference may serve as a turning point. We will only know if concrete changes occur hereafter: a General Assembly resolution on anti-Semitism adopted, an annual report on anti-Semitism forthcoming, a focal point on anti-Semitism created, a rapporteur on anti-Semitism appointed.

But I challenge the secretary-general and his organization to go further--if they are serious about eradicating anti-Semitism:

Start putting a name to the terrorists that kill Jews because they are Jews.

Start condemning human-rights violators wherever they dwell--even if they live in Riyadh or Damascus.

Stop condemning the Jewish people for fighting back against their killers.

And the next time someone asks you or your colleagues to stand for a moment of silence to honor those who would destroy the state of Israel, say no.
Only then will the message be heard from these chambers that the U.N. will not tolerate anti-Semitism or its consequences against Jews and the Jewish people, whether its victims live in Tehran, Paris or Jerusalem.

IMHO, the evidence is difficult to dispute.

[dennisrwood]

*stands and applauds*

someone please refute this. if the un is such a noble bearer of human rights, it must be easy to dispute...

[Cail]

Won't happen....This is the second time Brinn's posted this, and there is no comeback.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Listen, I don't have any anti semitic feelings or interests at all, and the cycle of violence analogy is the only one that seems logical to me. Is the thrust of this speech (1) condoning violence against terrorists (not that that's necessarily a bad thing, I'm just trying to get this clear) and (2) the UN is biased ?

I just don't understand how further ethnic violence will eventually cause an end to ethnic violence in the region. Unless of course one side totally cripples the other. If there's another way to look at it, I'd really like to hear it.

[Skyweir]

IMHO it is far from simple propaganda. I reprint a speech by Hudson institute fellow and Columbia University Law professor Anne Bayefsky delivered at the UN conference for confronting anti-semitism.

Does anyone read these lengthy citations? It would seem from the standing ovations and praise at the ability to reproduce (cut and paste) large sections of text is in some way proof of a sound arguement. there are so many holes in Bayefski's address that it would do a gross injustice not to address them point by point. I can only hope albeit lengthy someone will at least read and consider the following:

Bayefsky.com was created through the financial support of the Ford Foundation. Research funds were also provided by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. The section of the website entitled "How To Complain About Human Rights Treaty Violations" was supported by the Consultative Council of Jewish Organizations, London, U.K. Funding is also gratefully acknowledged from The Jacob Blaustein Institute, New York and from the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

I went to the web-site and read Bayefski's bio and a number of published articles by her. This is not a source that is without bias. Bayefski has an axe to grind. Her views are rabbidly pro-jewish/Israeli and highly critical of the UN. Her article concerning the UN's response following Bush's re-election were heavily weighted in emotive content: particularly sarchasm. This is not an unbiased or reliable source .. She merely presents her opinion .. an opinion that does not address a balance between pro's and cons.

I posted this earlier in this very thread but I reprint it here because I think it is one of the most eloquent and compelling speeches I have seen addressing the subject. IMHO, it provides compelling evidence that the UN, if not anti-semitic in itself, has been used by member nations to provide an anti-semitic platform.

I note that this is your opinion .. and that you consider her address the equivalent of "compelling evidence". I must disagree.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you at this first U.N. conference on anti-Semitism, which is being convened six decades after the organization's creation. My thanks to the U.N. organizers and in particular Shashi Tharoor [the undersecretary-general for communications and public information] for their initiative and to the secretary-general for his willingness to engage.

This meeting occurs at a point when the relationship between Jews and the United Nations is at an all-time low. The U.N. took root in the ashes of the Jewish people, and according to its charter was to flower on the strength of a commitment to tolerance and equality for all men and women and of nations large and small. Today, however, the U.N. provides a platform for those who cast the victims of the Nazis as the Nazi counterparts of the 21st century. The U.N. has become the leading global purveyor of anti-Semitism--intolerance and inequality against the Jewish people and its state.

Not only have many of the U.N. members most responsible for this state of affairs rendered their own countries Judenrein, they have succeeded in almost entirely expunging concern about Jew-hatred from the U.N. docket. From 1965, when anti-Semitism was deliberately excluded from a treaty on racial discrimination, to last fall, when a proposal for a General Assembly resolution on anti-Semitism was withdrawn after Ireland capitulated to Arab and Muslim opposition, mention of anti-Semitism has continually ground the wheels of U.N.-led multilateralism to a halt.

There has never been a U.N. resolution specifically on anti-Semitism or a single report to a U.N. body dedicated to discrimination against Jews, in contrast to annual resolutions and reports focusing on the defamation of Islam and discrimination against Muslims and Arabs. Instead there was Durban--the 2001 U.N. World Conference "Against Racism," which was a breeding ground and global soapbox for anti-Semites. When it was over U.N. officials and member states turned the Durban Declaration into the centerpiece of the U.N.'s antiracism agenda--allowing Durban follow-up resolutions to become a continuing battlefield over U.N. concern with anti-Semitism.

Is there a resolution on anti-christianism?? on anti-islam?? The reason the UN would be reluctant to endorse such a resolution would be because it would be unsound. Anti-racism is a far broader and sounder resolution to support.

As for the historical basis for the establishment of the state of Israel no one would be foolish enough to argue that the jews did not suffer under Nazi Germany. A homeland was found for the resettlement of the jews. There is a long history concerning the occupation of the region. Israel was secured not via acts of legitimacy but in actuality also via individual acts of terrorism.

When the British left the region following the attacks on the Hotel David in which they suffered fatalities .. Israel secured statehood thereafter.

When Bayefski uses the term "JUDENREIN" .. she draws an outrageously unjust parrallel between Nazi Germany's policy of a Jewish free state/world .. to the UN ..

Not only have many of the U.N. members most responsible for this state of affairs rendered their own countries Judenrein, they have succeeded in almost entirely expunging concern about Jew-hatred from the U.N. docket.

She fails to support her allegation with evidence .. who are "they"? Which states have followed in Nazi Germany's path to seek a similar state of JUDENREIN????? Bayefski fails to account for this outrageous claim!

Compelling evidence?? Really? Where is the evidence for such claims? .. Well so far we are presented much opinion but only a gross lack of EVIDENCE or evidentiary support for this claim.

Not atypical is the public dialogue in the U.N.'s top human rights body--the Commission on Human Rights--where this past April the Pakistani ambassador, speaking on behalf of the 56 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, unashamedly disputed that anti-Semitism was about Jews.

What was actually disputed and not well interpreted, was not an assertion that anti-semetism was not about Jews .. but what Pakistan in fact disputed was that anti-Israel sentiments was not about anti-semeticism .. statements against Israel are not anti-Jew!

Statements against Israel are about criticism with Israeli administration - a political opposition directed at the Israeli government not at the state religion.

For Jews, however, ignorance is not an option. Anti-Semitism is about intolerance and discrimination directed at Jews--both individually and collectively. It concerns both individual human rights and the group right to self-determination--realized in the state of Israel.
What does discrimination against the Jewish state mean?

I have to agree with those that dispute the meaning of anti-semeticism. Being critical of an administration does not infer criticism or prejudice against the popular religous body. Because Isreal as a nation comes under criticism does not go to those criticisms being anti-semetic. It would be as ludicrous as the US being criticised as being infered as a stance against christianity!

The record of the Secretariat is more of the same. In November 2003, Secretary-General Kofi Annan issued a report on Israel's security fence, detailing the purported harm to Palestinians without describing one terrorist act against Israelis which preceded the fence's construction. Recently, the secretary-general strongly condemned Israel for destroying homes in southern Gaza without mentioning the arms-smuggling tunnels operating beneath them. When Israel successfully targeted Hamas terrorist Abdel Aziz Rantissi with no civilian casualties, the secretary-general denounced Israel for an "extrajudicial" killing. But when faced with the 2004 report of the U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions detailing the murder of more than 3,000 Brazilian civilians shot at close range by police, Mr. Annan chose silence. That's discrimination.

No it is not!.. it was extra-judicial execution, the label given was appropriate.

To expect the UN to condone actions of this nature, or any other kind of approval for such an action is outrageous! And again Bayefski misrepresents the scenario, Rantissi was not the sole casualty in this air strike.

In response the British Foreign Minister Jack Straw condemned the action by stating:

"The British government has made it repeatedly clear that so-called 'targeted assassinations' of this kind are unlawful, unjustified and counter-productive."

Also the United States White House spokesman, Scott McClellan had this to say:

"The United States strongly urges Israel to consider carefully the consequences of its actions..."

Sharon states in defense of this action:

“Only support for the disengagement plan will allow us to continue to manage a relentless battle against terror,” Sharon said. “Disengagement allows us a free hand to act against terror.”

In response George W Bush stated he was "troubled" by the act and then went on to add:

“In light of new realities on the ground,” Bush declared, “It is ‘unrealistic’ for Palestinians to expect the Israelis to abandon their illegal settlements and give back the land they seized in 1967. If all parties choose to embrace this moment, they can open the door to progress and put an end to one of the world’s longest-running conflicts.”

The problem with Sharon's disengagement strategy is that it is an abandonment of the peace process of approximately four decades and is in all effect, a road map to war.

Israel is THE most powerful state in the region, possessing weapons of mass destruction! The technology supplied by the US .. This to a great extent, secures Israel's position in the region.

Sharon has the endorsement of Bush, to act unilaterally. The real problem for the rest of the world, the UN included, is that it is very difficult to support outlaw tactics no matter who is weidling them. Sharon has targetted numerous individuals and operations of his assasination squad are known and justified by him.

At the U.N., the language of human rights is hijacked not only to discriminate but to demonize the Jewish target.

Boy this is soo one sided. Even Australia has come under criticism for human rights abuses .. pertaining to our indigenous population. If I am not wrong, so too has the US.

to "demonise the jewish target" is not a little emotive and exaggerates the system of addressing human rights condemnation. Bayefski fails to acknowledge that the UN has condemned China, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria .. And leaving that aside, just how is addressing Israeli human rights violations interpreted as demonising Jews??

This is a misrepresented inaccuracy, the UN does not require the production of a statistical number of Isreali abuses per year.

As Israelis are demonized at the U.N., so Palestinians and their cause are deified.

Palestine is not deified by the UN .. acts of Palestinian hostilities are condemned by the UN. Individual states may retain their own bias' but the UN does not condone acts of terror.

Every year the U.N. marks Nov. 29 as the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People--the day the U.N. partitioned the British Palestine mandate and which Arabs often style as the onset of al nakba or the "catastrophe" of the creation of the state of Israel. In 2002, the anniversary of the vote that survivors of the concentration camps celebrated, was described by Secretary-General Annan as "a day of mourning and a day of grief."

This is taken out of context clearly in order to allege something not intended by SG Annan. It is ridiculous to assert that Annan considers it a day of mourning and grief that so many jews survived. He is joining in solidarity in grief and mourning for the millions who were lost.

In 2003 the representatives of over 100 member states stood along with the secretary-general, before a map predating the state of Israel, for a moment of silence "for all those who had given their lives for the Palestinian people"--

Palestinians are fighting for their own liberation. Surely Israeli's of all people can understand the need for a homeland! And have we so quickly forgotten how Israel's statehood was secured??

Perceptions differ from actor .. Palestinians see themselves as freedom fighters & liberationists, Israel view them as terrorists. Do we also forget that Palestine after years of occupation and subjugation to imperial powers, the UK included .. following the end of WW2 before the spoils of war were divided, looked for statehood and a division of land to inhabit.

Israel also not entirely convinced about the return of the Jews post WW2 .. supported their need for a place to occupy. I dont think it was ever conceived that this act would deny Palestine a legitimate portion of that region .. and their quest for statehood.

Although Palestinian self-determination is equally justified, the connection between demonizing Israelis and sanctifying Palestinians makes it clear that the core issue is not the stated cause of Palestinian suffering. For there are no U.N. resolutions deploring the practice of encouraging Palestinian children to glorify and emulate suicide bombers, or the use of the Palestinian population as human shields, or the refusal by the vast majority of Arab states to integrate Palestinian refugees into their societies and to offer them the benefits of citizenship. Palestinians are lionized at the U.N. because they are the perceived antidote to what U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi called the great poison of the Middle East--the existence and resilience of the Jewish state.

I find that very difficult to believe. As for what statement one envoy makes does not make it official UN stance.

Of course, anti-Semitism takes other forms at the U.N. Over the past decade at the commission, Syria announced that yeshivas train rabbis to instill racist hatred in their pupils. Palestinian representatives claimed that Israelis can happily celebrate religious holidays like Yom Kippur only by shedding Palestinian blood, and accused Israel of injecting 300 Palestinian children with HIV-positive blood.

And ofcourse Israel follows such concessions uttered as threat by Syria??? Not!!

Such statements are not law .. and are the sentiments of Syria not the UN.

It follows in U.N. logic that nonvictims aren't really supposed to fight back. One after another concrete Israeli response to terrorism is denounced by the secretary-general and member states as illegal.

for the very reason that Israel is a state .. and for a state to act via assasination squads and other disproportionate use of force - illigitimate actions .. are in fact acts falling well outside of lawful and legitimate justifiable responses. If Israel chose to act within legal parameters .. then those acts in response to Palestinian hostilities would be more rightly justified.

But killing members of the command-and-control structure of a terrorist organization, when there is no disproportionate use of force, and arrest is impossible, is not illegal. Homes used by terrorists in the midst of combat are legitimate military targets. A nonviolent, temporary separation of parties to a conflict on disputed territory by a security fence, which is sensitive to minimizing hardships, is a legitimate response to Israel's international legal obligations to protect its citizens from crimes against humanity. In effect, the U.N. moves to pin the arms of Jewish targets behind their backs while the terrorists take aim.

This is the first valid analysis imo .. Bayfeski makes. This is indeed the problem with addressing hostilities of this nature. The issue she fails to acknowledge fairly is that the UN are not collaborators of Palestinian or similar terrorists. The criticisms regarding the establishment of the wall is centered on fair division of land and resources. There is not a fair division represented within the paramaters of the wall.

Also the disproportionate use of force also needs a fairer representation imo.

The U.N.'s preferred imagery for this phenomenon is of a cycle of violence. It is claimed that the cycle must be broken--every time Israelis raises a hand. But just as the symbol of the cycle is chosen because it has no beginning, it is devastating to the cause of peace because it denies the possibility of an end. The Nuremberg Tribunal taught us that crimes are not committed by abstract entities.

Again Bayefeski misrepresents the issue imo. There is no suggetion that hostilities are committed by abstract entities. The entities are largely known. It is appropriate to identify the violence as a CYCLE OF VIOLENCE. It does have a beginning .. but Israel may prefer not to take a look back to its beginning. And I refer to its modern beginning following WW2 .. not its ancient biblical roots - I am only focussing on its political beginnings.

Indeed it is a cycle of violence. Violence begets violence .. not peace.

The perpetrators of anti-Semitism today are the preachers in mosques who exhort their followers to blow up Jews.

True enough!! It is better to identify the real cause of anti-semeticism and where the threats may lie than to lay responsibility on the UN.

They are the authors of Palestinian Authority textbooks that teach a new generation to hate Jews and admire their killers.

I have no doubt this is true. There are tracts produced by Islamic fundamentalist that state the same hatred for christians and the west.

They are the television producers and official benefactors in authoritarian regimes like Syria or Egypt who manufacture and distribute programming that depicts Jews as bloodthirsty world conspirators.

In the absence of names and citations I will take her word for this .. and I dont doubt that there are individuals that lend their support including financial support for such movements.

Listen, however, to the words of the secretary-general in response to two suicide bombings which took place in Jerusalem this year, killing 19 and wounding 110: "Once again, violence and terror have claimed innocent lives in the Middle East. Once again, I condemn those who resort to such methods."

I would expect no other response.

"The Secretary General condemns the suicide bombing Sunday in Jerusalem. The deliberate targeting of civilians is a heinous crime and cannot be justified by any cause."

Deliberate targetting of civillians is a heinous crime and can not be justified by any cause.

As for the secretary general refusing to name the perpetrators, it isn't even established that Secretary General Annan even knew the names of the perpetrators. Just that he did not supply them. He has however, made his position quite clear. Targetting of civillians is a heinous and injustifiable crime. To use the term "crime" has a lot more weight when used by Annan that any casual observer. By inference then, it is a crime that can be punished one would assume, as belonging to that category of Crimes against Humanity.

Perhaps more than any other, the big lie that fuels anti-Semitism today is the U.N.-promoted claim that the root cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the occupation of Palestinian land.

This is the motivation behind this conflict .. it is a landbased conflict.Ofcourse this is about land.

In reality, Israel occupies land taken in a war which was forced upon it by neighbors who sought to destroy it.

She is talking here about the war of 1948, the YumKippur war and the 6 Day War. As Israel was successful it managed to push back it neighbours and claimed new frontiers. If its not about land why take and occupy this land? The Israeli's took advantage of opportunities presented to them to aquire new land.

It is a state of occupation which Israelis themselves have repeatedly sought to end through negotiations over permanent borders. It is a state in which any abuses are closely monitored by Israel's independent judiciary. But ultimately, it is a situation which is the responsibility of the rejectionists of Jewish self-determination among Palestinians and their Arab and Muslim brethren--who have rendered the Palestinian civilian population hostage to their violent and anti-Semitic ambitions.

It is also an Israeli rejection of Palestinian right to self-determination. There are two sides to every arguement .. the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is no exception.

There are those who would still deny the existence of anti-Semitism at the U.N. by pointing to a range of motivations in U.N. corridors including commercial interests, regional politics, preventing scrutiny of human rights violations closer to home, or enhancement of individual careers. U.N. actors and supporters remain almost uniformly in denial of the nature of the pathogen coursing through these halls. They ignore the infection and applaud the host, forgetting that the cancer which kills the organism will take with it both the good and the bad.

Or indeed, it is not "denial" of the alleged pathogen as accused but simply that there is no pathogen .. alternatively it may be that it is not even an readily identifiable issue .. or indeed it is non-existent!

The relative distribution of naiveté, cowardice, opportunism, and anti-Semitism, however, matters little to Noam and Matan Ohayon, ages 4 and 5, shot to death through their mother's body in their home in northern Israel while she tried to shield them from a gunman of Yasser Arafat's al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. The terrible consequences of these combined motivations mobilized and empowered within U.N. chambers are the same.

This is sooo unfair .. to draw a comparison that degrades the principles of the UN to that of assasin. Bayefski does not address the root problem she seeks a scape goat for that problem. Someone to blame .. and why not the UN which stands for the exact opposite of such heinous crimes.

The inability of the U.N. to confront the corruption of its agenda dooms this organization's success as an essential agent of equality or dignity or democratization.

The UN agenda is not corrupt .. this is to oversimplify the complexities involved in managing a large and diverse membership. I agree that reform is warranted. The real difficulty is being able to address corruption that does occur within any large inter-governmental organisation. This must be addressed and reforms in this area are entirely warranted .. imo .. to give the UN teeth!

This conference may serve as a turning point. We will only know if concrete changes occur hereafter: a General Assembly resolution on anti-Semitism adopted, an annual report on anti-Semitism forthcoming, a focal point on anti-Semitism created, a rapporteur on anti-Semitism appointed.

Again I see this is difficult to realise unless there are also resolutions on anti-christianism and anti-islam. Bayefski seeks positive discrimination in favour of Israel and the Jewish population. I dont think this is reasonable proposal and difficult to support, as it positively discriminates in favour of a specific group .. where as the anti-race resolution does not favour any one group.


There are many conflicting views surrounding this issue, clearly or Bayefski would never have addressed them from her pro-Israel perspective.

[Skyweir]

I get a little irritated when Americans bitch about the uselessness of the UN.

First of all, the UN has been the sole intrument in creating and upholding standards for international trade, broadcast, and copyright laws -- the stability of which our economy depends.

Secondly, if you want to bitch about the toothlessness of the UN in regards to Human Rights, and military matters, perhaps you would do well to research the dentist who removed those teeth - a quick google of the number of UN resolutions and condemnations of Israel for their treatment of the Palestinians, cross-referenced against the number of times the US has used their Veto on such votes should be instructive.

Finally, recent abuses in Iraq's oil for food program is disappointing, but a little research beyond Foxnews (CNN, BBC, NPR) would reveal that the percentage of oil revenue generated during the embargo that has ended up in UN pockets is a relatively tiny fraction of the widely reported totals. The rest was generated by oil trucked out of Iraq and sold to countries like Syria - presumably under the same US satellites that "found" all of the "evidence" of WMD the US presented to the UN, and therefore with US complicity.

Just because the Government and the Press are serving up the Kool Aid doesn't mean you have to drink it.

[Rivenrock]

Bayefsky.com was created through the financial support of the Ford Foundation. Research funds were also provided by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. The section of the website entitled "How To Complain About Human Rights Treaty Violations" was supported by the Consultative Council of Jewish Organizations, London, U.K. Funding is also gratefully acknowledged from The Jacob Blaustein Institute, New York and from the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

I went to the web-site and read Bayefski's bio and a number of published articles by her. This is not a source that is without bias. Bayefski has an axe to grind. Her views are rabbidly pro-jewish/Israeli and highly critical of the UN...This is not an unbiased or reliable source .. She merely presents her opinion .. an opinion that does not address a balance between pro's and cons.

I think that's a little harsh, Sky. Bayefski does not claim to be an objective source. She is open regarding her perspective, particularly on her site. Also, to say she is an unreliable source because she is Jewish, or funded by Jewish organisations, doesn't follow. We certainly must take her perspective into consideration (as with any information source), but if she provides sufficient evidence, then we can rely on her information.

I have to agree with Brinn that she provides evidence of anti-Semitism in the UN. However I do so agreeing, to paraphrase Brinn, that it is not that the UN is inherently anti-Semitic, but rather that some member nations have used UN forums to promote anti-Semitic views.

Is there a resolution on anti-christianism?? on anti-islam?? The reason the UN would be reluctant to endorse such a resolution would be because it would be unsound. Anti-racism is a far broader and sounder resolution to support.

She directly compares the lack of even one UN resolution or report specifically on anti-Semitism to "annual resolutions and reports focusing on the defamation of Islam and discrimination against Muslims and Arabs". So it appears there are. I agree with you that anti-racism (of any kind) would be more productive for general resolutions, but perhaps these resolutions refer to specific locations or events, as might a resolution on anti-Semitism, if it existed.

When Bayefski uses the term "JUDENREIN" .. she draws an outrageously unjust parrallel between Nazi Germany's policy of a Jewish free state/world .. to the UN ..

Yes and no. She does say UN "members most responsible for this state of affairs", so not the UN in general, but specific member states. Also, if she is referring to particular Muslim/Arab states (and yes it would have been helpful if she had identified the states she was talking about, but given the forum, there is a fair argument to be made that she could assume her audience knew who she was referring to), they may indeed not allow Judaism and in that way they are 'judenrein'. I must agree that she is using Nazi jargon (and other more common speech-making devices) to increase the emotional impact of her words, but that doesn't automatically render her evidence biassed or unreliable.

Being critical of an administration does not infer criticism or prejudice against the popular religous body. Because Isreal as a nation comes under criticism does not go to those criticisms being anti-semetic.

I very much agree. I also think that there is another aspect of this situation not taken into account by Bayefski. Certain of these numerous resolutions or reports about Israel might be the result of numerous proposals/reports/complaints by nations who oppose or are in conflict with the Israeli state. In addition, the opposition to Israel from these countries may have increased not because of anti-Semitism, but because of anti-US sentiment. As the US is and has been the biggest supporter of the Israeli state, a "demonised" Israeli also reflects on the US. I'm not denying the anti-Semitic attitudes of some states - I think she evidences a certain amount of bias/discrimination in UN forums regarding Israel. But anti-Semitism may also be the brush with which other agendas are being tarred.

In 2002, the anniversary of the vote that survivors of the concentration camps celebrated, was described by Secretary-General Annan as "a day of mourning and a day of grief."

This is taken out of context clearly in order to allege something not intended by SG Annan. It is ridiculous to assert that Annan considers it a day of mourning and grief that so many jews survived. He is joining in solidarity in grief and mourning for the millions who were lost.

I am certain you are right about this.

Listen, however, to the words of the secretary-general in response to two suicide bombings which took place in Jerusalem this year, killing 19 and wounding 110: "Once again, violence and terror have claimed innocent lives in the Middle East. Once again, I condemn those who resort to such methods."

I would expect no other response.

"The Secretary General condemns the suicide bombing Sunday in Jerusalem. The deliberate targeting of civilians is a heinous crime and cannot be justified by any cause."

Deliberate targetting of civillians is a heinous crime and can not be justified by any cause.

As for the secretary general refusing to name the perpetrators, it isn't even established that Secretary General Annan even knew the names of the perpetrators.

I think you have misunderstood Bayefski here. I don't think she disagreed with the statements of the secretary-general. I think her criticism was that he at no time used the word 'Palestinian'. Her implication seems to be that the Secretary-General calls Israeli attacks 'Israeli attacks' and Palestinian attacks just 'attacks', and in doing so lends bias to the perception of the listener.

The inability of the U.N. to confront the corruption of its agenda dooms this organization's success as an essential agent of equality or dignity or democratization.

The UN agenda is not corrupt .. this is to oversimplify the complexities involved in managing a large and diverse membership. I agree that reform is warranted. The real difficulty is being able to address corruption that does occur within any large inter-governmental organisation.

In fairness though, to paraphrase what you yourself have said, the UN is only as strong, or as moral, or as objective, as its member nations. If those nations are corrupt, then the UN agenda will become corrupted, surely?

[Skyweir]

ent to the web-site and read Bayefski's bio and a number of published articles by her. This is not a source that is without bias. Bayefski has an axe to grind. Her views are rabbidly pro-jewish/Israeli and highly critical of the UN...This is not an unbiased or reliable source .. She merely presents her opinion .. an opinion that does not address a balance between pro's and cons.

I think that's a little harsh, Sky. Bayefski does not claim to be an objective source. She is open regarding her perspective, particularly on her site. Also, to say she is an unreliable source because she is Jewish, or funded by Jewish organisations, doesn't follow. We certainly must take her perspective into consideration (as with any information source), but if she provides sufficient evidence, then we can rely on her information.

I am disappointed that you would assume that I disregard Bayefski as a credible source because she is Jewish. Thats not why I dont consider her an objective source. It is because she presents a one sided agenda. Her work is not objective. It maintains bias.

I have to agree with Brinn that she provides evidence of anti-Semitism in the UN. However I do so agreeing, to paraphrase Brinn, that it is not that the UN is inherently anti-Semitic, but rather that some member nations have used UN forums to promote anti-Semitic views.

strange as that is my view .. I havent read back to previous pages and seen evidence of this view being espoused. I have long said that flaws with the UN .. fall on the members states constituting it.

Is there a resolution on anti-christianism?? on anti-islam?? The reason the UN would be reluctant to endorse such a resolution would be because it would be unsound. Anti-racism is a far broader and sounder resolution to support.

She directly compares the lack of even one UN resolution or report specifically on anti-Semitism to "annual resolutions and reports focusing on the defamation of Islam and discrimination against Muslims and Arabs". So it appears there are. I agree with you that anti-racism (of any kind) would be more productive for general resolutions, but perhaps these resolutions refer to specific locations or events, as might a resolution on anti-Semitism, if it existed.

I will concede this one, however I prefer to find some support for Bayefski's assertion that not even one resolution or report exists in relation to anti-semetism.

When Bayefski uses the term "JUDENREIN" .. she draws an outrageously unjust parrallel between Nazi Germany's policy of a Jewish free state/world .. to the UN ..

Yes and no. She does say UN "members most responsible for this state of affairs", so not the UN in general, but specific member states.

It is clear that her meaning is to draw a parallel between Nazi policy of Judenrein to the UN in general.

Also, if she is referring to particular Muslim/Arab states (and yes it would have been helpful if she had identified the states she was talking about, but given the forum, there is a fair argument to be made that she could assume her audience knew who she was referring to), they may indeed not allow Judaism and in that way they are 'judenrein'.

I disagree. She is speaking to a member audience of several hundred .. there is no reason to suppose that all would be cognizant of which states she may be refering to as endorsing anything so extreme as Judenrein.

I must agree that she is using Nazi jargon (and other more common speech-making devices) to increase the emotional impact of her words, but that doesn't automatically render her evidence biassed or unreliable

. I think it does. The language she uses to communicate her arguement is loaded with emotive content in order to present her anti-semitic assertions.

I am unsure of how you perceive this as lacking bias. Bayefski isnt presenting an objective appraisal for our consideration. Her evidence is loaded with emotive content .. in order to sensationalise the dull reality that unidentified member states dont necessarily support a Nazi policy of Judenrein. This is a serious allegation to make, and at the end of it we neither know .. who maintains such an outrageous policy or how it has been determined that it exists.

Being critical of an administration does not infer criticism or prejudice against the popular religous body. Because Isreal as a nation comes under criticism does not go to those criticisms being anti-semetic.

I very much agree. I also think that there is another aspect of this situation not taken into account by Bayefski. Certain of these numerous resolutions or reports about Israel might be the result of numerous proposals/reports/complaints by nations who oppose or are in conflict with the Israeli state. In addition, the opposition to Israel from these countries may have increased not because of anti-Semitism, but because of anti-US sentiment. As the US is and has been the biggest supporter of the Israeli state, a "demonised" Israeli also reflects on the US. I'm not denying the anti-Semitic attitudes of some states - I think she evidences a certain amount of bias/discrimination in UN forums regarding Israel. But anti-Semitism may also be the brush with which other agendas are being tarred.

Fair comment. I do not deny anti-semitic attitudes of some states. Anti-semitic attitudes have existed for generations - there is no denying that. What I do object to is the assertion that the UN is anti-semitic as a body.

In 2002, the anniversary of the vote that survivors of the concentration camps celebrated, was described by Secretary-General Annan as "a day of mourning and a day of grief."

This is taken out of context clearly in order to allege something not intended by SG Annan. It is ridiculous to assert that Annan considers it a day of mourning and grief that so many jews survived. He is joining in solidarity in grief and mourning for the millions who were lost.

I am certain you are right about this

thank you

Listen, however, to the words of the secretary-general in response to two suicide bombings which took place in Jerusalem this year, killing 19 and wounding 110: "Once again, violence and terror have claimed innocent lives in the Middle East. Once again, I condemn those who resort to such methods."

I would expect no other response.

"The Secretary General condemns the suicide bombing Sunday in Jerusalem. The deliberate targeting of civilians is a heinous crime and cannot be justified by any cause."

Deliberate targetting of civillians is a heinous crime and can not be justified by any cause.

As for the secretary general refusing to name the perpetrators, it isn't even established that Secretary General Annan even knew the names of the perpetrators.[/quote]

I think you have misunderstood Bayefski here. I don't think she disagreed with the statements of the secretary-general. I think her criticism was that he at no time used the word 'Palestinian'. Her implication seems to be that the Secretary-General calls Israeli attacks 'Israeli attacks' and Palestinian attacks just 'attacks', and in doing so lends bias to the perception of the listener.

mmm .. as discussed with you on the phone earlier you may be right .. I do think I may have mis-read her meaning. Thanks for pointing it out!

The inability of the U.N. to confront the corruption of its agenda dooms this organization's success as an essential agent of equality or dignity or democratization.

The UN agenda is not corrupt .. this is to oversimplify the complexities involved in managing a large and diverse membership. I agree that reform is warranted. The real difficulty is being able to address corruption that does occur within any large inter-governmental organisation.

In fairness though, to paraphrase what you yourself have said, the UN is only as strong, or as moral, or as objective, as its member nations. If those nations are corrupt, then the UN agenda will become corrupted, surely.

This I must respectfully disagree my friend. 'Yes and No' as you like to say

I have conceded that there are flaws that need addressing and that these flaws fall predominantly with management of member states. However what I can also assert: is that the UN agenda is not corrupt. When the US sought unilateral action, the processes established did not make this action easy or even able to get passed. The agenda and policies are such that there are checks and balances in place. What I assert is that regardless of member states inactions or flawed action .. the UN is a body of policy and principle .. and this body of policy and principle is not founded on anti-semitic prejudice or any other injust or even corrupt notion.

And again I would never assert as you have so blithely, that the "member nations are corrupt and thus .." because that is a sweeping and unsound generalisation.

I am certain there is not one nation that is perfect and that pursue their own national interests in many or most cases above the international interest .. But I would never suggest all do. There would also be those nations that do endeavour to support the lofty principles of the UN.

And this endeavour may well not be consistent .. but needs to be.

As Mhoram said on another thread .. if you want a perfect international body .. you will never find it. There will always be criticisms levelled at such a body .. It isnt perfect .. and there are changes that I would like to see addressed but this doesnt mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater imo.

[Rivenrock]

I am disappointed that you would assume that I disregard Bayefski as a credible source because she is Jewish. Thats not why I dont consider her an objective source. It is because she presents a one sided agenda. Her work is not objective. It maintains bias.

Sorry if I misunderstood. What then was your reason for quoting her sources of funding and bolding the phrases that included the Jewish names/institutes above the paragraph where you assert that she is a biassed source with 'an axe to grind'?

Also, I'm interested to know how, given how many comparisons Bayefsky makes/contrasting examples she gives in order to substantiate her claims regarding UN actions, you came to the conclusion that her work is not objective, or at least not objective enough for us to believe the information she is providing regarding the number of resolutions, or statements made, etc. I'm not taking it all as gospel truth, but I believe the majority of it is probably accurate, whereas you seem to have given credence to very little of it (eg, "She merely presents her opinion".)

I will concede this one, however I prefer to find some support for Bayefski's assertion that not even one resolution or report exists in relation to anti-semetism.

Okay, but she was addressing the UN conference for confronting anti-semitism - she'd have to be pretty careless to get that wrong in the very forum that could instantly call her out for being inaccurate.

It is clear that her meaning is to draw a parallel between Nazi policy of Judenrein to the UN in general.

We disagree. That's fine. I think my last paragraph (in this post) gives additional evidence that she was speaking of particular member states and not the UN as a whole. But even if your interpretation is correct, it is worth noting that the word Judenrein means 'free of Jews'. A state which has a policy of no Judaism does not necessarily endorse Nazi policies of exterminating Jews. In addition, this word is probably much more a part of Bayefsky's common vocabulary than it is ours, given her work.

...given the forum, there is a fair argument to be made that she could assume her audience knew who she was referring to), they may indeed not allow Judaism and in that way they are 'judenrein'.

I disagree. She is speaking to a member audience of several hundred .. there is no reason to suppose that all would be cognizant of which states she may be refering to as endorsing anything so extreme as Judenrein.

I think it's reasonable that an audience attending a UN Conference for Confronting Anti-Semitism would be aware of the countries that most vehemently oppose Israel, which is my impression of who she is referring to. In fact, as the audience gave her a standing ovation I'm fairly sure they were a crowd that was already aware of the situation she outlined.

The language she uses to communicate her arguement is loaded with emotive content in order to present her anti-semitic assertions.

I am unsure of how you perceive this as lacking bias.

I guess my feeling was that while her speech included emotive content, her evidence seemed generally unbiassed. For example, the statement about Israel being "demonised" is emotive, sure, but the evidence given that:

More than one quarter of the resolutions condemning a state's human rights violations adopted by the commission over 40 years have been directed at Israel. But there has never been a single resolution about the decades-long repression of the civil and political rights of 1.3 billion people in China, or the million female migrant workers in Saudi Arabia kept as virtual slaves, or the virulent racism which has brought 600,000 people to the brink of starvation in Zimbabwe.

is a series of facts that can be refuted, or not. To use the word 'required' in the following:

Every year, U.N. bodies are required to produce at least 25 reports on alleged human rights violations by Israel, but not one on an Iranian criminal justice system which mandates punishments like crucifixion, stoning and cross-amputation of right hand and left foot.

is a careless mistake, but either there ARE at 25 reports on Israel and none on the Iranian criminal justice system, or there aren't. That's what I mean when I say that emotive language does not necessarily make her evidence biassed. If the figures she gives are accurate, they constitute objective evidence. Again, I'm not claiming there is an absence of bias in her speech; only that I felt that most of her information was credible enough to consider.

And again I would never assert as you have so blithely, that the "member nations are corrupt and thus .." because that is a sweeping and unsound generalisation.

Yes it is...just as well I never did 'blithely assert' that then, hey? If you read back to the sentence concerned, you'll find that the word 'if' serves a rather crucial role in stopping me from making any such foolish generalisation.

Interestingly, on reading it again, I'm not even sure Bayefsky was actually saying that the UN agenda is corrupt - at least not in the sense of it being so when the agenda was formed. "The inability of the U.N. to confront the corruption of its agenda" could also be read as "the inability of the UN to confront the attempts of member states to corrupt its agenda". I wonder if that might be more the angle she was going for - ie, if the UN can't stop states with anti-Semitic attitudes using the mechanisms of the UN to target Israel, then the UN will fail in its purpose to be "an essential agent of equality or dignity or democratization". What do you think?

Edit: Yeah, I just found another article of hers that lends itself to that interpretation. Here's a quote from that article:

The Arab drive to destroy the state of Israel has debased the U.N., sullied its charter, perverted the meaning of human rights, and ransacked international law and its highest Court. How many more of the universal ideals upon which our world depends must be desecrated before we say "enough"?

I think it's so, that she's calling on the UN to stop member states from corrupting its agenda (and principles), rather than outrightly saying that the UN is a corrupt organisation.

RR

[Brinn]

I went to the web-site and read Bayefski's bio and a number of published articles by her. This is not a source that is without bias. Bayefski has an axe to grind. Her views are rabbidly pro-jewish/Israeli and highly critical of the UN. Her article concerning the UN's response following Bush's re-election were heavily weighted in emotive content: particularly sarchasm. This is not an unbiased or reliable source .. She merely presents her opinion .. an opinion that does not address a balance between pro's and cons.

I think Riven rock makes an excellent point in regards to your contention that Bayefsky is biased. I would hesitate to use the terms biased, rabid or unreliable as one must first determine whether her content and arguments are grounded in fact and reality. After all, a reasonable argument grounded in fact is really not a bias at all. For example, Would it be reasonable to assume that one who argues against the Nazi cause has an anti-nazi bias because of these views. I would say no, as objective reality indicates that this persons views have basis in fact. Coming down on one particular side of an issue does not always indicate bias.

Is there a resolution on anti-christianism?? on anti-islam?? The reason the UN would be reluctant to endorse such a resolution would be because it would be unsound. Anti-racism is a far broader and sounder resolution to support.

If the UN is truly concerned with all racism than what is lost by the redundant inclusion of a specific reference to anti-semitism? Especially considering the semantic games that have been persistent in the UN. For example, when the UN first adopted an international convention against racial discrimination in 1965, it refused to include a reference to anti-Semitism because the Soviet Union, its satellites, and its Arab allies insisted that anti-Semitism was a question not of race but of religion, yet when the UN later adopted a resolution on religious intolerance, The Durban Declaration, the lead sponsor, Brian Cowen of Ireland, insisted that anti-Semitism should be omitted because it was a matter not of religion but of race.

But to answer your question specifically, there have been anti-Jewish resolutions. The famous “Zionism is Racism resolution” (UNR 3379 established in 1975 and then repudiated in 1991 with the staunch support of the US) specifically charges Israel with practicing racism. The concept of “Zionism” moves anti-semitism beyond the discussion of race or religion into a political, and therefore more acceptable, form. In effect it makes anti-semitism safe from challenge as intolerance or racism (i.e. I don’t dislike Jews, I just don’t like Israel’s policies).

Additionally let me list several other examples of what, if not outright anti-semitism, could only, kindly, be called a double standard:

- Currently there are several committees to address the plight of Palestine: The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, the Division on Palestinian Rights and the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs to name a few, but none for Israel.

- 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." In fact, an entire 2003 Commission resolution "combating defamation of religions," mentions only prejudice against Muslims, Arabs and Islam specifically.

- The U.N. has repeatedly held "Emergency Special Sessions" focusing solely on Israel. No Emergency Special Sessions were convened to examine the genocide in Rwanda, ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia or other major world conflicts.

- The U.N. has never initiated any inquiry into Yasir Arafat and the Palestinian Authority's role in aiding and abetting terrorists, or passed one resolution condemning any terrorist organization operating against Israel.

- The concealment and vehement denial of the existence of videotape of Hezbollah's abduction of three Israeli soldiers made by U.N. peacekeeping forces in Lebanon. For 11 months, the U.N. lied to the world and denied the existence of any evidence related to the abduction. When the cover-up was exposed, revealing the existence of the videotape, the U.N. eventually showed Israel a heavily edited videotape with the faces of the terrorists blurred. When asked the reason behind this, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan stated it was due to the U.N.'s standing as a neutral organization.

- Though anti-Semitic canards often go unchallenged in the UN, the mere reference in the 1997 Commission on Human Rights to an allegedly blasphemous reference to Islam, by a UN expert and from an academic source, brought a rebuff by consensus by the Chair, and the deletion of the offending sentence. In contrast, during the 1991 session of the Commission on Human Rights, the Syrian Ambassador repeated the Damascus Blood Libel that Jews killed Christian children to use their blood to make Matzoth. This anti-Semitic libel went unchallenged until the US exerted enormous pressure to procure a challenge to this libel in the record, and then only months after the Syrian representative emphasized to the Commission, "it's true, it's true, it's true."

- On 11 March 1997, the Palestinian representative charged, in a chamber packed with 500 people including the representatives of 53 states and hundreds of non-governmental organizations, that the Israeli Government had injected 300 Palestinian children with the HIV virus. Despite the repeated interventions of the Governments of Israel and the US, and UN Watch, this modern Blood Libel stands unchallenged and unrefuted on the UN record. No appropriate action by any UN body or official has been taken to date. The Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights agreed to place on the record his letter to the Ambassador of Israel, sharing his "concern as to the charge made" against Israel -- "an allegation made without evidence, on the basis of a newspaper article ... proved completely false." The Chairman reneged on his agreement after he was called to task by a delegation of Arab Ambassadors and received no support from other regional groups. Blood Libels are vicious and persistent carriers of anti-Semitism. The latest PLO Blood Libel bears the imprimatur of the UN record and has yet to be removed by consolidated action of the Commission or by any UN agency or official on the public record. (Nor was there any rebuke in 1992 to a UN document circulated in the Commission by the PLO observer, which stated that Israelis "celebrating ...Yom Kippur, are never fully happy even on religious occasions unless their celebrations, as usual, are marked by Palestinian blood.")

- You might even be interested in what effect Bayefsky’s speech, which I reprinted, had on the UN conscience. To answer: In December of 2003 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.

When Bayefski uses the term "JUDENREIN" .. she draws an outrageously unjust parrallel between Nazi Germany's policy of a Jewish free state/world .. to the UN..

I don’t think it’s outrageous at all. I think it is very appropriate given the stated goals of many of the arab states.

Boy this is so one sided. Even Australia has come under criticism for human rights abuses .. pertaining to our indigenous population. If I am not wrong, so too has the US.

to "demonise the jewish target" is not a little emotive and exaggerates the system of addressing human rights condemnation. Bayefski fails to acknowledge that the UN has condemned China, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria .. And leaving that aside, just how is addressing Israeli human rights violations interpreted as demonising Jews??

This is a misrepresented inaccuracy, the UN does not require the production of a statistical number of Isreali abuses per year.

It may not be a requirement but the sheer number of anti-israel resolutions that comes out of the UN each year is surely disproportional to the resolutions that the rest of the world is subject to. The Commission on Human Rights routinely adopts totally disproportionate resolutions concerning Israel. I submit as evidence:

- Of ten emergency special sessions called by the GA, six have been about Israel. No emergency sessions have been held on the Rwandan genocide, ethnic cleaning in the former Yugoslavia, or the two decades of atrocities in Sudan.

- At the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, only Israel has its own agenda item [item 8] dealing with alleged human rights violations. All other countries are dealt with in a separate agenda item [item 9]. More than one quarter of the resolutions condemning a state's human rights violations adopted by the Commission over the past 40 years have been directed at Israel.

- A series of anti-Israel resolutions are passed each year by the GA.

- Until recently, Israel was the only member nation consistently denied admission into a regional group. The Arab states continue to prevent Israeli membership in the Asian Regional Group, Israel's natural geopolitical grouping. As a result, Israel sought entry into the Western and Others Group (WEOG) and was granted admission in May 2000 to that regional group in New York, but not in Geneva. Israel's full participation in the U.N., therefore, is still limited and it is restricted from participating in U.N.-Geneva based activities.

Additionally, a study was conducted in August 2003 by the United Nations Association of the UK to determine if there is a lack of balance in the language of UN resolutions on the Israeli-Palestinian issue and whether the language in these resolutions contribute positively to the peace process in the Middle East. The conclusions follow:

Conclusions:

On the basis of the UNSC and UNGA Resolutions assessed, the United Nations was found to be palpably more critical of Israeli policies and practices than it is of either Palestinian actions or the wider Arab world. However, criticism is not necessarily a product of bias, and it is not the intention here to suggest that UNGA and UNSC reproaches of Israel stem from prejudice. From the perspective of the UN, Israel has repeatedly flouted fundamental UN tenets and ignored important decisions. Omitting a recognition of Israel’s breach of international law in subsequent resolutions would diminish the credibility of UN authority and of its legitimacy as the
primary guarantor of international peace and security. Whether or not the decisions themselves are based on completely accurate interpretations of events is an entirely separate issue. Because of the more pronounced level of criticism in the General Assembly Resolutions, it was thought superfluous to give each resolution an individual score. With a few exceptions, the UNGA
Resolutions are more or less critical towards Israel and express sympathy with the Palestinian experience. The UNSC Resolutions evaluated were less uniform in their censure of Israel; it was thus more feasible to give each resolution a negative or neutral figure, depending on its perceived treatment of Israel. A negative figure was generally given when the condemnations of Israeli
policies were explicit. However, it should be noted that this “method” is highly subjective, imprecise and potentially misleading.

Security Council Resolutions:
Given the permanent membership of the United States on the United Nations Security Council, the UNSC Resolutions over this period were predictably neutral towards Israel. Actions, such as “the excessive use of force”, were condemned, but the agent of such force was rarely named explicitly. George Bush, incidentally, has pledged to veto any resolution condemning Israel which
does not also denounce terrorism orchestrated against Israel.

General Assembly Resolutions:
As one would expect, resolutions passed in the same period by the General Assembly were far more explicit in their condemnation of Israel. Underpinning these resolutions is the conviction that Israel is in clear breach of international law, the implications of which were stated to extend beyond the region to threaten global peace and stability as a whole. It is repeatedly stressed throughout the resolutions that international consensus favours the Palestinians. Israeli actions are attributed with thwarting Palestinian socio-economic and educational development and are implicated, furthermore, in impairing the psychological health of Palestinian children. Violence perpetrated against Israeli civilians, including the use of suicide bombers, is mentioned only a few times and then in only vague terms. Violence against Palestinian civilians, on the other hand, is described far more explicitly. Israeli occupying forces are condemned for the “breaking of bones”of Palestinians, the tear-gassing of girls’ schools and the firing on hospitals in which a specific number of women were said to be giving birth.

Palestine is not deified by the UN .. acts of Palestinian hostilities are condemned by the UN. Individual states may retain their own bias' but the UN does not condone acts of terror.

As I have detailed above it seems to “not condone” some more than others.

Palestinians are fighting for their own liberation. Surely Israeli's of all people can understand the need for a homeland! And have we so quickly forgotten how Israel's statehood was secured??

Have you so quickly forgotten that we’ve discussed this issue previously? The Hotel David was a legitimate military target and the Irgun provided warning to the Hotel prior to the explosion. Hardly in the same league as intentionally targeting innocent schoolchildren.

In response to the fact that UN Special Advisor to the Secretary General Lakhdar Brahimi called the existence and resilience of the Jewish state “The great poison of the Middle East” Sky responded:

I find that very difficult to believe. As for what statement one envoy makes does not make it official UN stance.

You are in fact correct Sky. Brahimi, on French radio actually stated “The great poison in the region is this Israeli policy of domination and the suffering imposed on the Palestinians as well as the equally unjust support of the United States for this policy”. I will leave motive and comparisons of intent to the reader. Regardless, one in such a position as Mr. Brahimi should have better sense than to advocate such positions. He is no more a spokesperson for the UN than Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld is a spokesperson for the US Government…That is to say, he is very much so.

Indeed it is a cycle of violence. Violence begets violence .. not peace.

Not always the case as WWII clearly illustrates.

Deliberate targetting of civillians is a heinous crime and can not be justified by any cause.

As for the secretary general refusing to name the perpetrators, it isn't even established that Secretary General Annan even knew the names of the perpetrators. Just that he did not supply them. He has however, made his position quite clear. Targetting of civillians is a heinous and injustifiable crime. To use the term "crime" has a lot more weight when used by Annan that any casual observer. By inference then, it is a crime that can be punished one would assume, as belonging to that category of Crimes against Humanity.

I think Riven pointed out that you missed the point on this one. The fact that the UN identifies Israel very clearly when it chooses to target a suspected violation is contrasted to the generalized rhetoric that is used when Palestinians or Arabs are the culprit. I’m glad that you now see this point.

The UN Agenda is not corrupt .. this is to oversimplify the complexities involved in managing a large and diverse membership. I agree that reform is warranted. The real difficulty is being able to address corruption that does occur within any large inter-governmental organisation. This must be addressed and reforms in this area are entirely warranted .. imo .. to give the UN teeth!

As I stated previously, by allowing Arab countries to conscript the U.N. for their war against the Jewish state, the weaknesses of the system become apparent. Every advantage that Arabs have gained over Israel at the U.N. proclaims the strength of autocracies and dictatorships over liberal democracy. This lesson is reinforced every time there is a condemnation of the Jewish state.

[Nathan]

Coming down on one particular side of an issue does not always indicate bias.

From dictionary.com

tr.v. bi·ased, or bi·assed bi·as·ing, or bi·as·sing bi·as·es or bi·as·ses

To influence in a particular, typically unfair direction; prejudice

If the things she is saying are designed to influence in a particular direction then they are biased.

[Brinn]

Thank you Nathan for the semantic clarity. Maybe my point was a bit too nuanced but I do see that the definition provides the caveat that bias is typically considered to be slanting an argument in an unfair direction. As I think Bayefsky's points are grounded in fact I stand by my assertion.

Example:

You assert that 2+2 eqauls 5. I counter that your conclusion is incorrect and that 2+2 equals 4 thus I am attempting to influence you or any impartial observer. I have come down squarely squarely on one side of an issue. Does this show bias on my part?

[Nathan]

It seems so to me, you haven't provided any rational basis for your idea that 2+2=4. I have absolutely no reason to believe you.

You seem to be biased towards a traditional mathematical model which I may not be making use of.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Reading Brinn's posts is trying enough. Now I've got point-by-points from Rivenrock and Skyweir? Bah!!! Humbug to the lot of you.