| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald holds up a magnifying glass to that most grandiose of dhimmi institutions, the United Nations:
The UN now certainly bears no resemblance to the organization that Eleanor Roosevelt, Rene Cassin, and others thought they were founding after World War II. The major impetus for its founding was the desire to avoid a repetition of what had just been experienced. Despite the best efforts of many people, what has happened in the last nearly four decades is a steady increase in the power not of the Soviet bloc, which has not existed for a decade, but of a bloc of Muslim Arab nations -- roughly, the 22 members of the Arab League, together with a number of non-Arab states such as Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, that slavishly follow the Arab line -- who now control the agenda of the UN and its constituent bodies.Thus it is that 1/3 of the time of the UN is now devoted to that most pressing of problems, the mighty empire of Israel, that exists on 0.2% of the total land mass of the Arab states, and that is guilty of attempting to defend itself against a relentless Jihad. This monomaniacal attention to Israel means that there is far less attention paid to:
1) Muslim genocides, from East Timor and the Moluccas and Ambon to southern Sudan;
2) Muslim persecution of non-Muslims in many places, from northern Nigeria to Egypt (the Copts) to the Arab Peninsula (where Christians and Hindus among foreign workers are persecuted for daring to observe, in however minor a manner, the rituals of their own religions);
3) Ongoing Muslim campaigns or religiously-inspired Jihads, against Jews everywhere, against Hindus in Kashmir, and against Hindu and Sikh and Christian civilians wherever they can be found, both in Pakistan and in Bangladesh;
4) The destruction of the natural environment -- since all environmental questions are potentially threatening to the Arabs, who wish for the world to remain a heavy user of fossil fuels;
5) Nuclear proliferation among states that are run by despots and peopled by primitives who cannot be trusted -- unlike, say, Israel or Australia, or South as opposed to North Korea -- not to use them except in self-defense.
A series of American ambassadors have commented on the grotesque anti-Israel scenes in the General Assembly, and the lopsided and absurd votes. But what they have failed to notice is that this is not isolated, but part of the pro-Islamic policy of the UN It is not a matter only of the votes of diplomats, but of the personnel at every level, from the sinister philo-Khomeini, viciously anti-Israel Director of Communications in the office of the UN Secretary-General, Edward Mortimer (google "Edward Mortimer" and "jihadwatch" for previous discussions of this man, who should be made the target of investigations and, one hopes, will be seen not fit to work at the UN for both his raptures over Khomeini and the record of his endorsement of Lenny Brenner and the "Zionist-Nazi" conspiracy theory) to those who staff the UNRWA -- some 13 of whom, one sees, were some time ago arrested by the solicitous, hyper-delicate, scrupulous Israelis, who are at long last, after the disastrous Gaza withdrawal, beginning to act with a minimum sense of what decency and self-defense require.The UN did nothing, despite the superb work of Gaspar Biro, the Special Rapporteur for Southern Sudan, about the 2 million Christians and animists in the south who were killed by northern Arabs. It has done essentially nothing in Darfur -- google "Darfur" and "jihadwatch" for previous predictions on this -- because the Arab League is against anything being done. It wants the northern Arab Muslims to be allowed to empty out the Darfur region, so that the Arab Muslims -- who are more "equal" than all other Muslims -- will have that land (for it is land, not the people, who matter to the Muslim Arabs -- just as they regard the "land" of Western Europe as belonging to them, by right, and not to the indigenous non-Muslims who built whatever civilization Western Europe possesses).
This new attitude of the Israelis is welcome, but it is hardly enough. One hopes that the United States will cease to think that its responsibilities to the non-Muslm world end with vetoing this or that unjust anti-Israel resolution. That is only a beginning. A sensible policy requires that the American government every day make efforts to promote among Infidel countries and peoples an understanding of how the UN has been infiltrated, and essentially commandeered, by the forces of Islam: the Islamintern, it might be called. And then to minimize the power, the respect, and the legitimacy still accorded to the UN, this most corrupt and corrupting of institutions. And finally, it must seek not to do the impossible -- to truly reform this organization -- but to treat it as it should be treated: as hopeless, useless, and irrelevant as was the League of Nations when confronted with the Nazi-Fascist attacks in Spain, Mussolini's invasion of Abyssinia, and Nazi Germany's annexation of the Saarland and re-militarization of the Rhineland.
The League, this Societe des Nations, failed completely, and it closed up shop. The UN has, over the past 30 years, failed almost completely and will continue to fail. Unlike the League of Nations, it will not be closed down. But it should be ignored or mocked and shown for what it is -- so that the free Infidel nations can take adequate measures to emerge victorious in this contest to preserve their own identities against a Muslim world that cannot stand the success, or the superiority, of non-Muslims when Islam is, by their lights, supposed to dominate and rule everywhere, but instead has effectively allowed the worst and craziest elements not only to exist, but to prevail.
In order for Western Europe -- and for Israel first -- to save themselves, it should be obvious that those who do not believe in Western civilization and wish only to subjugate the non-Muslims among whom they live will have to be expelled back to the Dar al-Islam. And that can only take place with a clear understanding of what is going on: it is not, pace some, for the thousandth time, merely a "war on terror." The UN is not the place for clarity or coherence on these matters. In 1950, or even 1960, or even 1965, this was not evident. Decent people could still thrill at the idea of the UN. But there is no excuse now for anyone to regard it with anything other than suspicion and contempt -- and to see it, rightly, as an organ that promotes, by omission and commission, the furtherance of the world-wide Jihad in all of its local manifestations and larger goals.
Posted by Robert at September 27, 2005 3:28 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
The UN, this holy cow:
how should it be slaughtered, Mr. Fitzgerald?
Halal or kosher?
But this cow gotta go...!
On another note:
The sheik was genuine.
His invitation to the land of Downunder still stands.
He would be pleased to have the honor of hosting you!
Posted by: sheik yer'mami![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 27, 2005 4:00 AM
Well.. UN's one darn cow that even Hindus wont consider holy.
I remember back in Feb 2002 when Gujarat was burning . They tried to pass a resolution condemning India for "violating" religious freedom" (burning a train full of Hindus can hardly be called religious freedom) of minorities (read Muslims). Ironically the resolution was introduced by mother of all tolreant societies.. the KSA.
Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at September 27, 2005 4:51 AM
I just love reading articles about the ballless wonders of Turtle Bay, the eUNuchs. Need I say more?
Posted by: Rick at September 27, 2005 7:47 AM
The latest archaeological discovery is a ritual bath from the period of the second Jewish Temple, which was destroyed in A.D. 70, and a small wall from the period of the first Jewish Temple, destroyed in the year 586 B.C. The public will be able to view the remains with a light show about Jewish history in the coming weeks, said Rabbi Shmuel Rabinovitch, chief rabbi of the Western Wall, one of Judaism's holiest sites.
Adnan Husseini, the head of the Islamic Trust that oversees the two mosques at the site, condemned the diggings and Israel's intention to open it to the public, calling it a 'confiscation' of Muslim property.
The UN is a failed organization made up of the walking dead.
Posted by: leavingtheleft at September 27, 2005 8:03 AM
I would disagree with just one point Robert made. He said the UN bears no resemblance to the organization envisioned by Eleanor Roosevelt, et al. I think it is the same organization. The UN was never a "community of nations" or anything like that. It was, and it remains, an association of entrenched governments. The UN, like any trade association, exists to advance the interests of its members. Most of the governments that make up the UN's membership are corrupt, repressive dictatorships that hold on to power only through force of arms. It is in their interest to focus attention on Israel and direct attention away from their own actions. Certainly, the UN claims to be a force for good, for human rights, etc. But it is not unusual for a trade association to try and claim a constituency beyond its actual membership. Banking associations claim to represent banks and their depositors. Insurance associations claim to represent insurance companies and their policyholders. The UN claims to represent governments and their citizens. Of course, all these claims should be treated with suspicion. The oppressive governments that make up the bulk of UN membership find it in their interest to use the UN as a propaganda organization that deflects attention away from their abusive policies and focuses on Israel. The UN is a creature of its own structure. It can't be anything else, nor has it ever been anything else.
Posted by: sbrst at September 27, 2005 8:43 AM
leavingthe left posted: "Adnan Husseini, the head of the Islamic Trust that oversees the two mosques at the site, condemned the diggings and Israel's intention to open it to the public, calling it a 'confiscation' of Muslim property."
Islamic logic at its best.
Posted by: Anthony at September 27, 2005 8:49 AM
Anthony:
How true. You may recall the troll, Mohideen Ibrahimsha, who haunts JW, explaining why Israel is really Muslim land: because the Sinai Penninsula is actually but a part of the Saudi Penninsula. Hence, if all of "Palestine" is holy Muslim land because it was conquered by Muslims a few centuries after Mohammed's time, and especially Jerusalem, from where Mohammed may have ascended to heaven, then anything and everything becomes Muslim property in perpetuity (see Spain), no matter how it was acquired.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at September 27, 2005 12:51 PM
Adnan Husseini, the head of the Islamic Trust that oversees the two mosques at the site, condemned the diggings and Israel's intention to open it to the public, calling it a 'confiscation' of Muslim property
islam has been trying to deny the existence of Israel's long history in the land since it's(islam) beginning. The story of Israel will not be silenced.
Posted by: Carolyn2 at September 27, 2005 12:52 PM
Hugh is right. The UN's time was over long ago. It is a danger to civilization and mankind. Not the only one, but one of the chief dangers. Years ago, two political scientists, Abraham Yeselson and Anthony Gaglione, wrote a book, A Dangerous Place: The United Nations as a Weapon in World Politics. This was in 1974, and everything since then has confirmed their dire analysis. They write "... a dangerous place. We do not mean that it [the UN] is a good institution in need of a few reforms or that it is usually ineffective or that it changes nothing. It is a weapon in international relations and should be recognized as such. . . The United Nations contributes about as much to peace as a battleship or an atomic bomb." Now, Yeselson and Gaglione were writing BEFORE the ascendancy of Arab and other Muslim states was as marked as it is today. And they do not focus especially, as I recall, on the Muslim issue, such as how Saudi Arabia tries to influence the concept of human rights --with the Declaration of Islamic Human Rights, to counter the original UN declaration of 58 years ago. Now the situation is worse. If, as Hugh says, reasonable people could still think of the UN as a factor for peace, in 1965, that time of reasonable illusion has long since passed. If we wish to think of Bush as being tested, then his UN policy is one such test. If he continues to finance the outfit, continues to basically overlook the implications of Oil For Food, overlook the corruption of the UN top brass, including Kofi, then he is not conducting an effective anti-terrorism policy or protecting civilization. -- To be blunt, do people really want Saudi Arabia to be setting the definition of human rights or do we want the Saudi/Islamic version to have equal rights with the original UN declaration [no doubt that one too could be criticized], do we want Syria or Libya or Malaysia to be judging human rights violations at the UNHR Commission in Geneva? Should the mass murderers of the Sudan be telling the rest of the world how to make peace?
Back in July, after 7/7, Carlo Panella wrote a brief history of Pakistan for the Italian paper, Il Foglio that was a gem. Panella pointed to the British recklessness in setting up that "failed state." So the problem is clearly not only the latent or active jihad states, like Pakistan, but Western policies that encourage them. Maintaining the UN is also more reckless than abolishing it.
at September 27, 2005 4:47 PM
Panella pointed to the British recklessness in setting up that "failed state."
It's not the British Empire's fault that Muslims are incapable of civilization.
Posted by: Dr. Pepper at September 28, 2005 12:46 AM
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 was the high-point of the UN, its been down hill since that point. I am not sure of the status of the Islamic version, but I have to say, that to me the litmus test for the UN is the failure to protect and nourish the UDHR in all but Western countries.
The Islamic version is a direct attack on universal human rights, but I get the impression that this is ignored. But to me the UDHR is something that could galvenise us all, as far as I can see both the left and the right should support the UDHR, is that the middle ground, the rallying ground for us in defeating this wave of religious fundementalism. Am I wrong?
Sadly I have come to the conclusion that the UN like the EU is part of the problem and both organisations are failing. While the UDHR is now a powerful weapon in the armoury of the Islamics in tying our hands behind our back, why have we let this happen and can we do anything to put the UDHR back where is should be, a rallying call for freedom, democracy and rights.
The first action in defence of the UDHR is to put the Islamic version in the dustbin where it belongs, it is not universal and tied in to Sharia it is against the UDHR in many areas. But is there the will to say that the Islamic version is a travesty, a fraud and against the UDHR, certainly not in the UN I suspect.
Posted by: Daffersd at September 28, 2005 4:49 AM
Daffersd is right of course that the 1948 UDHR is misused to tie our hands against fighting the jihadists. But it is not only Islamists who are tying the hands of civilization in dealing with jihad. It is also so-called "liberals" and "leftists." Now, if liberalism means promoting liberty, then the true liberals today are few among those called liberals. This is because Jihad means to destroy liberty. And Islam is opposed to human equality, which is supposed to be a value or objective of the "left." The problem of the Islamic Declaration of HR is discussed by David Littman in an issue of Midstream several years ago, and by Carlo Panella in his book "Il Complotto Ebraico."
Now, given the usually frankly admitted Islamic opposition to equality and liberty, the strange bedfellowship of "leftists," "liberals," and jihadists is indeed bizarre and dangerous.
Likewise, we ought to strive to disabuse people of all sorts of false ideas that discourage opposition to jihad. These include the notion of a 3rd World, whereas the Arabs were enslaving African blacks long before the Europeans sailed down the west coast of Africa. And the historic relationship between Arabs/Muslims and the West [or the Jews, for that matter] is far different from the classic "Third World" [Tiers-mondiste] paradigm which may work for the relationship between the West and India or China, or for the early contacts between Western Europe and West Africa. So the whole notion of the 3rd World as a whole, the parts of which are identical in their historical relationship with the West, and as a potentially and rightfully harmonious whole, is fraudulent.
While we are rethinking concepts, the very notion of a Left-Right political spectrum ought to be reconsidered. After all, when both Grover Norquist and Lynn Stewart serve the jihadists, then what is the significant difference between "left" and "right"?? The political spectrum notion mainly serves to confuse people.
As to my comment about the British empire, let me add that the British government had [or has had] a pro-Muslim policy for a very long time, whether or not Dr Pepper was aware of it. For example, why did the Colonial Office give Sudan independence in 1956 as a unitary state, for example, instead of as a federal state, or better yet, as two states, one for the Arabized Muslim north, and one for the non-Muslim south? The British had managed the Sudan condominium as two separate regions, protecting the southern tribal Blacks from the Arabs and Arabized northern Muslims until after WW2. Yet, then their policy changed to a quite pronounced pro-Arab one. The consequences of that British decision are obvious today in the decades of warfare and slaughter in the Sudan since independence in 1956. In the case of Pakistan, maybe India was fortunate, although Ghandi and Nehru did not realize it in 1947, to be separated from that large Muslim population, which may have allowed India to develop with less internal Muslim-Hindu strife than otherwise. Today, India is way ahead of Pakistan on many measures of social and economic development. The gap is not due to any (non-existent) racial difference, but is entirely --or almost entirely-- due to religious factors.
Posted by: Eliyahu at September 28, 2005 6:31 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)