A report from Israel National News detailing the utter moral corruption of the UN.
Peter Hansen, the Commissioner-General of UNRWA in Gaza, told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation two days ago that some UNRWA workers are Hamas terrorists. "I am sure that there are Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll," Hansen said, adding, "I don't see that as a crime... We do not do political vetting and exclude people from one persuasion as against another."Hansen attempted to draw a distinction between 'political' and 'militant' Hamas members. Both the United States and the European Union do not accept this distinction, however, and have outlawed or blacklisted all branches of Hamas and have frozen all Hamas assets.
"Despite the gravity of this matter," HonestReporting.com reported yesterday, "Hansen's admission that Hamas members are on the UN payroll has - as of now - received scant media attention. The Associated Press, for example, buried Hansen's statement in an article that focused primarily on IDF air strikes, and the New York Times has yet to even acknowledge Hansen's admission. This error of omission is particularly troubling in light of Israel's ongoing campaign in Gaza to stop Hamas from firing rockets into Israeli towns such as Sderot."
Israel has admitted that its latest accusation against UNRWA - to the effect that a Palestinian terrorist was filmed loading a Kassam rocket onto a UN ambulance van - is probably not true. The object seen being loaded onto the van was most likely a stretcher, IDF sources now say. Hansen demands a clear Israeli apology.
Israel insists, however, that Hansen is not the impartial observer his job description mandates. In the wake of the 2002 Jenin operation, Hansen was one of those who falsely accused Israel of having perpetrated a massacre. He used terms at the time such as, 'wholesale obliteration... a human catastrophe that has few parallels in recent history,' 'helicopters... strafing civilian residential areas,' and 'bodies... piling up' in 'mass graves.' HonestReporting.com notes that Hansen even claimed to have seen some of the alleged carnage with his own eyes.
Armed Palestinians were filmed in May of this year using UNRWA ambulances to transport terrorists. Other documented UNRWA violations of its neutrality:
* Sept. 2003: After the Israeli military court convicted three UNRWA employees for terrorist activities, Israel detained at least 16 other UNRWA staff members for various security-related matters.
* Dec. 2002: An Israeli intelligence report indicated that numerous UNRWA facilities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza had been used by Palestinian terrorists as meeting grounds and for weapons storage.
* Sept. 2002: Nahd Attala, a senior official of UNRWA in Gaza, revealed that in June-July 2002, he used his UNRWA car for the transportation of armed Fatah members on their way to carry out a missile attack against Jewish communities. In addition, Nahd said he used an UNRWA car to transport a 12-kg. explosive charge for his brother-in-law, a Fatah member.
* August 2002: Nidal Nazzal, a Hamas member and ambulance driver employed by UNRWA, confessed to transporting weapons and explosives in an UNRWA ambulance. He said he had taken advantage of the freedom of movement he enjoyed as part of his UNRWA job to transmit messages among Hamas members in various PA-controlled towns.
* February 2002: Ala Muhammad Ali Hassan, a Tanzim member, confessed to having carried out a sniper shooting from the school run by UNRWA in the al-Ayn refugee camp near Nablus. He also told his interrogators that bombs intended for terrorist attacks were being manufactured inside the UNRWA school's facilities.
Since UNRWA is actively pro-Palestinian (read: pro-terrorist) Israel should expel all non-Palestinian UNRWA workers, level all buildings they use and destroy all vehicles. Buildings and vehicles used for terrorist purposes have no immunity under international law. And, since the UN has demonstrated its own moral bankruptcy by allying with genocidal terrorists, its time for all US funding and support for UN operations to end.
Then the following somewhat buried news story today, on how the UN is indeed looking to create a "global test" to judge the legitimacy of pre-emptive strikes.... (apparently force is only ok if UN staff want to attack Israel)...
Note the key sentence here:
"The exercise is really to make the U.N. work so well in these areas that the U.S. won't be tempted, or tempted as often, to walk away from the system," Mr. Evans said.
No concern about what other countries do, just want to control the US right to soverign action.
========================================
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unitedstatesaction/message/9105
U.N. panel to frame guidelines on legality of pre-emptive strike
October 6, 2004
By Heather J. Carlson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20041006-012158-7663r.htm
Members of an international panel studying United Nations' operations say the group hopes to lay down clear rules declaring when it is legal for a nation to use pre-emptive military force in its own defense.
The issue grows out of the international controversy over the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq without a final U.N. Security Council resolution explicitly authorizing the war, said panel member Gareth Evans, a former foreign minister of Australia.
"I expect the panel to be giving close consideration to what those rules are and how they should be applied and whether an effort should be made to identify generally agreed criteria for the legitimate use of force, whatever the context," Mr. Evans said during a recent appearance at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington.
He made his remarks before last week's presidential debate in which Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry's call for a "global test" on when pre-emptive action is justified became a campaign issue.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan established the 16-member High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change in November to study ways to reform the 59-year-old organization so it can better address 21st-century threats to security and peace.
But Mr. Evans, currently president of the International Crisis Group think tank, said much of the panel's work has focused on establishing detailed guidelines for the use of military force.
"A central reason for our appointment was concern that the U.N., and indeed the whole multilateral security system, was really at a crossroads with the resurgence of unilateralism from you know whom, and increasing willingness to bypass the Security Council," Mr. Evans said in a clear reference to the Bush administration.
The lone American on the panel, retired Gen. Brent Scowcroft, voiced surprise at Mr. Evans decision to discuss the panel's work publicly and said it was premature to conclude what will be in the final report.
Nevertheless, Gen. Scowcroft said he does not expect that the panel's recommendations will rule out pre-emptive military action.
"I think if we end up dealing with the issue of pre-emption I would speculate that there will not be an attempt to ban it but an attempt to define and set parameters and guidelines," said Gen. Scowcroft, a former national security adviser to President Ford and the first President Bush.
The legality of pre-emptive action has been at issue since Mr. Annan told a British Broadcasting Corp. interviewer last month that he considered the invasion of Iraq to be "illegal" within the context of the U.N. system.
President Bush defended his decision in an address to the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 21, citing a series of U.N. resolutions passed prior to the war that promised "serious consequences" if Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein failed to disarm.
Mr. Kerry, during his debate with Mr. Bush on Thursday, said he supported the right of a president to order a pre-emptive strike but that it must pass "the global test where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."
Mr. Bush countered the next day that this would give foreign governments a veto over U.S. national security decisions.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, in an interview at The Washington Times last month, stressed that the U.S. Constitution authorizes the United States to act in its own self-defense without U.N. approval.
Even so, he said, the Iraq war was justified based on Saddam Hussein's numerous "material breaches" of U.N. resolutions on his weapons programs. "What we did was totally consistent with international law," Mr. Powell said.
Asked about a Russian claim that it has a right to act pre-emptively against terrorism anywhere in the world, Mr. Powell said such action "is part of the inherent right of self-defense" enjoyed by every country.
But, he said, "You'll have to make your case — once you've pre-empted something — to the world and to your own people that it was the right thing to do."
The U.N. charter authorizes the use of military force by member nations acting in "self-defense if an armed attack occurs" or when approved by the Security Council.
The U.N. panel is expected to submit its report to the secretary-general Dec. 1. Mr. Annan will decide whether the report will be made public.
Besides its recommendations on military force, the group is expected to call for changes to the Security Council's makeup. Mr. Evans said the panel has discussed recommending that several new countries be granted membership. Currently, all five permanent members have veto power.
"If you want the Security Council to be credible with the world as a whole, it has to reflect the world as a whole," he said.
A major impetus for improving the U.N. system, Mr. Evans said, is to ensure that the United States remains an active participant.
"The exercise is really to make the U.N. work so well in these areas that the U.S. won't be tempted, or tempted as often, to walk away from the system," Mr. Evans said.
Interesting to note that the only follow-up about the UNRWA - weapons smuggling via UN ambulance link (as opposed to merely having Hamas members on staff) and UNRWA's claim that the pictures provided by Israel as proof was merely that of a stretcher -- that made CBC radio news broadcasts, was a retraction of sorts by Israel.
I know it's possible that the Israelis rushed to judgment in this particular incident, but hell, if I were trying to smuggle armaments via an ambulance, I think I'd have the common sense to cover the stretcher over with a sheet and expect the Jihadists would be swift enough to do the same.
As for the other items noted above, the CBC has an ombudsman. I hope some Canadian bloggers will join me in writing the CBC ombudsman, noting the above. I'm sure his e-mail address will be available to the public via the CBC's website. And if HonestReporting.ca hasn't already followed up on this one, perhaps they should cascade this out to their contact list.