| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
In case anyone still takes the UN seriously, Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald has a few words:
The League of Nations was not a mess in the 1920s. It became a mess when, in the 1930s, it could not handle Mussolini or Hitler, and failed. The U.N. was not originally a mess when founded, with such tutelary spirits as Rene Cassin and Eleanor Roosevelt. It became a mess sometime after Bandung, when more and more "countries" that were primitive despotisms became members. The only two blocs that came to matter were first the Soviet bloc (where Ukraine and Byelorussia also had votes) of the captive or subjugated (by Communism, backed up by the Red Army) nations of Eastern and Central Europe, and the Arab bloc which in turn manipulated and directed a larger Muslim bloc. That Muslim bloc bullied or threatened or inveigled even non-Muslim states (such as those of black Africa after the Six-Day War) into doing the Muslim bidding, under the guise of fake "third-world" solidarity. Thus did the fabulously rich plutocrats of Arabia present themselves, dripping with gold, as representatives of the "Third-World" -- a Halloween joke, a Ballo-in-Maschera fantasia.The Soviet bloc is gone. For the past 30 years the U.N. has been steadily taken over by the Islamintern. The Arabs, the Muslims, the Islamintern international, controls levers and fills the lunchrooms and the corridors of power everywhere at the U.N., and at its constituent organizations worldwide. How else does the matter of "Palestine" fill up one-third of the time of the UN.? Apologists for Islam, by no means all of them Muslims, defenders of the Arab Muslim world-view and promoters of its political agenda, repackage the relentless Jihad against Israel as merely a conflict resulting from an "occupation" (nice neutral word, that, evoking -- quite inaccurately, given Israel's legal and historic claim to the lands that came into its possession in 1967 -- goose-stepping Nazis marching, eyes right, under the Arc de Triomphe). How is it that the behavior of tiny Israel has become the Central Question of the Age, while the Jihad is pursued in Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, the Philippines, Kashmir, the Sudan, the Balkans, Central Asia, West Africa, everywhere, everywhere, without a single resolution denouncing that Jihad, denouncing even within Islam the Arab supremacist ideology, the Arab imperialism, that lies behind and under and beside the vehicle of Islam and islamization?
Little in the years since 1967 has been done about any Muslim attacks on non-Muslims. Nothing was done, of course, about the Jihad against Israel, including attacks on schools (Ma'alot), schoolbuses, buses, airplanes, schoolgirls, the inhabitants of old-age homes in Vienna, Russian Jewish refugees coming by train to what they thought was a new life from the Soviet Union, Israeli athletes at the Olympics, Israeli diplomats in London -- no, not a peep from the U.N. except to denounce Israel. Nothing was done to come to the aid of the Christians of Biafra, subject to the genocidal assaults of the Egyptian pilots on Ibo villages, and of the Muslim northerners; 1 million people died. Nothing was done, despite the efforts of Rapporteur Gaspard Biro, to stop the 20-year effort by the Arab Muslim north to kill the animist and Christian blacks of the southern Sudan. Nothing was done when Indonesia took over Christian East Timor, to which it had no claim; nothing was done to protect those Christians until 1/3 of them, or 200,000 people, were murdered -- and then it was the Australians alone who rescued them.Edward Mortimer the Director of Communications at the U.N. and Kofi Annan's chief speechwriter, is an exemplary figure of today’s U.N., joined by many others -- after all, just what kind of person nowadays would join the U.N.? This is no longer the U.N. that Rene Cassin had any part in founding, not the U.N. of Mrs. Roosevelt, not the U.N. at which Shirley Hazzard and Joseph Gessen (Hessen) could work. The personnel is different; the atmosphere is different; the ideals are gone; the whole thing is even worse than the League of Nations in its dying fall.
We continue to take this most corrupt and corrupting of institutions seriously, after so much failure, when it largely protects not only war-criminals (remember one Kurt Waldheim?), although now it is clearly an obstacle to the creation of a league of victims and opponents of the Jihad. Nothing will ever happen seriously in the U.N. to stop Sudanese activities in Darfur or anywhere else. Nothing will ever happen to stop the genocidal Jihad against Israel; instead, support will be offered the invented "Palestinian people." And nothing will be done to stop the Islamic Republic of Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, any more than Iraq was being stopped back in 1981, or for that matter, in 2003, from doing whatever it could do (not always with success, but if at first you don't succeed....) to acquire the most dangerous kinds of weapons. It took other means, and it will, as well, with Iran.
Those who still take the U.N. seriously should be asked if they think the League of Nations was right to fold its tent when it could do nothing about Hitler in the Rhineland, nothing about the Fascists in Spain, nothing about Mussolini's invasion of Abyssinia, nothing about the Japanese invasion of Manchukuo. At a certain point, the farce has to end. That point has been reached, for sensible people who are paying attention (and in the hectic vacancy of life, it is harder to do so), with the United Nations. Only a fool nowadays would use a phrase such as "international community," which attempts to treat Syria and Iceland as the same kind of members, or Costa Rica and Saudi Arabia, as similarly situated and behaving. What nonsense. There is no "international community." There is no "community" which contains Iceland and Libya, Italy and Saudi Arabia, the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Some of these are our enemies; they wish us ill, they do not wish us well. Infidels and Believers cannot -- according to Islam itself, according to everything about Islam -- form a community. There is only the umma al-islamiyya, the Community of Believers. All others must be kept at bay, inveigled, fooled, undermined, ultimately conquered, and conclusively subjugated. No other possible outcome, according to what is contained in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, is possible.
The phrase "international community" is telling. Those who use it are telling us something about themselves. And what they are telling us isn't flattering.
There are no "united" nations. There is an organization that has been undermined from within. It is now an obstacle to the wellbeing of all those who wish to see clearly what is at stake in the worldwide Jihad, and to preserve themselves, in Europe, in America, in Russia, and in the Middle East, from the imposition of a belief-system -- through being overrun, slowly but surely, by adherents of that belief-system -- that has left every place it has conquered intellectually impoverished, and in every other way as well. Taking the U.N. seriously is by now as absurd as, in September 1939, going to the League of Nations (or as those incurable salon-habitués, the French, liked to call it, la Société des Nations, the "society or community of nations"), to ask it to please, please, please deal with Mr. Hitler -- he is behaving so badly.
Posted by Robert at December 9, 2005 1:43 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Hugh: Have any countries ever seriously considered getting out of the UN and starting a new organization for strictly democratic countries?
Posted by: Macondo5![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 9, 2005 2:05 PM
Macondo5: I thought about it. I've even got a name for the new organisation: Global Confederation. It has an edge that the UN doesn't. Seriously, United Nations sounds like a pussywillow organisation.
Posted by: A.G.Frederick III at December 9, 2005 2:13 PM
"The purpose of the United Nations is to bring all nations of the world together to work for peace and development, based on the principles of justice, human dignity and the well-being of all people." From the UN website.....
How do they justify countries like Iran being a part of this silly organization considering the quote above? Please, somebody explain their rationale, before the veins in my head explode.
Posted by: Macondo5 at December 9, 2005 2:24 PM
If you must, at least name this new organization the Save Freedom Coalition so that its war footing is acknowledged from the first step.
Posted by: Duke Eudes at December 9, 2005 2:29 PM
The UN is really worse than just a corrupt joke. It is a black hole that gobbles up billions of dollars from its donor nations with virtually no positive return. When it was founded in San Francisco in 1944, its first Sec-Gen (although you won't find him listed on the official roster of Secretary Generals) was Alger Hiss, a spy on Stalin's payroll. Maybe it's time to abolish all these so-called international organizations like the UN and NATO (who bombed Serbia to support the KLA) and restore national soveriegnty to all our countries.
Posted by: Provoslavni at December 9, 2005 3:42 PM
Other than the looney liberal left (aka LLL), just who does take the UN seriously? Certainly the various dictatorships, theocracies, etc. don't. To them the UN is just a tool to beat western liberal democracies over the head with.
Posted by: johnb at December 9, 2005 3:58 PM
Two small items of note:
Ia786 turned up on the Forums at www.visiontv.ca. Interesting side-note: he basically outright blamed Israel for 9/11. No point in stopping by to stomp on him ATM - he's even weaker there than he was here. But enough of idiots.
I regret to say I am about done posting on DW/JW. Now, now, before all the tears start flowing (for the love of God, Hugh; control yourself, man) I do so in a modest modification of a modest proposal:
Diaspora.
We've posted here a while. We know the score; we've seen the drill. We are, in effect, honoured ladies and gentlemen and Gary, preaching to the choir.
What I am suggesting is taking the song somewhere else.
Mr. Spencer put it best - we need to advertise, everywhere, and spread out the message of concern. Here, we're not accomplishing that. We know the deal back to front. We know what worries us, and why.
So who are we convincing, ultimately?
Many of us have or are already carrying the message abroad - we can see that by the new posters arriving, and: welcome! But we need more. We need - if I may paraphrase here, and I may - to ask not what DW/JW can do for our recognition of the issue, but what we can do to increase the recognition of these sites.
Ergo, and forthwith, I am leaving the site for the indeterminate future to carry aloft the message. I recommend we all try it for at least, say, a month. No harm in coming back and checking - but our debating skills, honed to wicked edges by Rob's clever commentary and Hugh's masterful monologues, are being wasted on each other.
I would like to thank you all for some excellent discussion and some - regrettably, in a way - eye-opening information. In particular: Robert, Hugh, Gary, KJ, Shiva, Water, johnb, Third, the Sheikh jsla, Vik, Imli and all the rest. Best of luck and as Dave Allen used to say: May your God go with you.
Merry Christmas!
The Indomitable
Prophet Geoff
Lion of Man
Regicist
at December 9, 2005 5:27 PM
Merry Christmas, Geoff! We'll be watching for you down the road. And Stay Safe!
Posted by: Gary at December 9, 2005 7:18 PM
Don't take the UN seriously?
The corrupt, toothless, Dhimmi infested, genocide ignoring UN, run by Kofi Annan and his son Coco?
That UN?
No, never should these overdressed bumbling oafs be taken seriously.
Posted by: DCWatson
at December 9, 2005 7:28 PM
Best of luck Geoff, and speaking of Dave Allen, who was always sending up religion: he said "If I was a muslim, I'd be dead by now", and you know what? He would be.
Dave Allen, who was a very perceptive man, knew what Islam was about.
Posted by: Voltaire at December 9, 2005 9:56 PM
Excellent post save for the drivel by johnb (grow up dude get a life and take stock of who the real internal problem is..hint has to do with Saudi Business partners and Islamic money and votes).
Geoff, best wishes I've enjoyed your posts, and your suggestion is spot on, JW'ers achieve nothing by preaching to the choir, check in with JW, support it but for the love of your God Jihad Watchers grow some cajones and take the battle to the Muslims on less choir friendly venues, like Liberty Forum.
How is that the behavior of tiny Israel has become the Central Question of the Age, while the Jihad is pursued in Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, the Philippines, Kashmir, the Sudan, the Balkans, Central Asia, West Africa, everywhere, everywhere, without a single resolution denouncing that Jihad, denouncing even within Islam the Arab supremacist ideology, the Arab imperialism, that lies behind and under and beside the vehicle of Islam and islamization?
I think you know the answer to that question Hugh.
Islamics can't confront the bankruptcy and vacuity of their "perfect ideology for the world". I have never ever seen a Muslim cop to any error, at best they will denounce a hadith verse as corrupted (one even claimed the hadith were corrputed by the Jews - lol, they blame everything on Jews - what supermen the Jews are, or the muslims make them out to be).
Besides being unable to cop to moral and intellectual bankruptcy, the Arab leaders use Israel as a foil, by which to change the subject and deflect criticism for their failure by blaming Israel.
The main topic of every OIC conference is Israel, you will never ever see an Arab (or Muslim) suggest that their failed state is a consequence of Islamic ideology. Not even a hint, and they can't reform because any reformations are an insult to and invalidation of Shari'a and the Koran.
So all they are left with is using Israel as a foil and an excuse, a perfect scapegoat.
at December 9, 2005 10:35 PM
Sorry for going OT
An extremely interesting talk by Walid Shoebat,Zak Anani and Ibrahim Abadallah
Each of the panelists agree that recruitment by terrorist organizations was not significant to their having become terrorists. Rather, terror is part of the "fiber of the culture" and joining terror organizations was organic and natural. They agreed that terror indoctrination permeates Muslim society. Fortunately, they were all able to deprogram themselves, primarily through conversion to Christianity.
"The text [Koran] tells you who your enemy is. The Jew first, then the Christian. Hence the hatred for America."
I just asked a question to the panel about the recent reports of the Palestinian election of a Fatah member named "Hitler" in Jenin and the fact that at least 25 PLO members go by the name of Hitler or Abu Hitler. Could any of them comment personally about how Nazism was perceived?
http://www.israpundit.com/archives/2005/12/reporting_live.php
at December 10, 2005 12:26 AM
I was taught in school that the League of Nations failed because:-
1. the USA did not join
2. when something serious came up, such as Mussolini's armies invading Abyssinia (Ethiopia)other delegates ..ahem.. laughed.
Agreed, Hugh, the UN is a joke; my country have public servants who "sign off" on UN resolutions (what happened to democracy?).
Disband the UN and replace it with "Jihad Watch International". More resources and strings to your bow.
at December 10, 2005 12:37 AM
I love that:
Disband the UN and replace it with "Jihad Watch International"
Who would disagree?
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at December 10, 2005 1:12 AM
Does anyone have any info on this group - United Muslims of America Interfaith Alliance? A search on Jihadwatch produces nothing.
Moderate Muslims
Inside Bay Area
POLITICIANS and scholars say moderate Muslims are critical of victory in the war on terror, but there is a troubling lack of clarity about who moderate Muslims are and what they believe, religiously and politically.
Human nature is to define "moderate" in terms of someone "just like us." In today's climate, defining a moderate Muslim often depends on the conservative backgrounds of those making the judgment, particularly Congressman Tom DeLay, the Rev. Pat Robertson, the Rev. Jerry Falwell, historian Bernard Lewis, policy analyst Daniel Pipes and syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer.
America's own foreign policy also plays a critical role in shaping the definition. For many, the litmus test for a moderate Muslim is tied to rubber stamping the U.S. government's position on Israel, Kashmir and Iraq.
Secular fundamentalists and neo-cons say a moderate Muslim must believe not in integration, but in assimilation — to be secular to the point of being anti-religious. Someone who accepts a position against wearing hijab, which they define as a sign of oppression, although most Muslim women do not wear it and many who do consider it an expression of religious freedom.
Inclusive beliefs
Truly moderate Muslims are those who live and work within societies, seek change from below, reject religious extremism, consider violence and terrorism to be illegitimate. We are thinkers who interpret and reinterpret Islam in relationship to the religious, social and political realities of their times and in the context of the international affairs. We believe in the revelations that came to the Jewish tribes in the Torah and the Christians in the Gospels.
Moderates in Islam, as in other faiths, are the majority. We represent various religious sects and economic rungs. The extremists have already been marginalized, because there is not a single government in the Muslim world that is lamenting the uprooting of the Talibans in Afghanistan, nor is there a single government openly supporting them. But the extremists get all the publicity, reinforcing millennium-old prejudices and hatred.
Many American-born Muslims are even more moderate than their immigrant parents. Like most who practice a minority religion, they are overwhelmingly in favor of separation of church and state, in contrast to many conservatives in the present government.
Islamic communities are more moderate than Americans think, but this is not to say everything is perfect in the Muslim world. A lot of work is needed regarding gender equality and reforms needed in schools, colleges and madrassahs, where there must be less emphasis on religiosity and more inclusion of modern sciences and the United Nation's Charter of Human Rights.
The need of the hour is to bring reforms to Islamic thought from within, by reaching out to truly moderate Muslims, rather than lumping them together with extremists. Presently, there is zero representation in all U.S. government affairs relating to Muslims globally.
Iftekhar Hai, a South City resident, is president of the United Muslims of America Interfaith Alliance. He and three other local columnists take turns writing for the Faith page.
at December 10, 2005 3:11 AM
Geoff:
I'll miss you terribly, but you are a true anti-jihad warrior.
Beer be upon you.
CGW
Posted by: CGW at December 10, 2005 7:06 AM
Hugh,
I just saw that Dr. Elbaradei of the IAEA just won the Nobel Peace Prize. Is this guy a serious person or is he of the ilk of Kofi Anan?
Il Toscano
Posted by: il toscano at December 10, 2005 12:14 PM
Yes the United Nations is NOT the Same. At the founding of the United Nations in San Francisco, Carlos Pena Romulo, gave a lecture wherein he said that there should ONLY be one Nation of the Philippines. There MUST not be two. One Roman Catholic and the other Islam. From that date, I have been opposed to Islam. If the World had taken the advise of Carlos Pena Romulo, and contained Islam, there would not be the trouble with the world today, at least that is my thought on the subject. When the United Nations was founded there were ONLY 50 Nations in that body, now there are over 150, and Far TOO many are under the thumb of Islam. Return the United Nations to the original 50, and kick out the rest, and maybe the world would be a better place.
Posted by: Beaujeu at December 10, 2005 2:42 PM
"I love that:
Disband the UN and replace it with "Jihad Watch International"
Who would disagree?"
Millions and millions of PC people in the West would.
Posted by: Dr. Pepper at December 10, 2005 3:45 PM
First you have got to tell all member govts to stop subsidizing that the criminal outfit, the UN.
Then say, Let's get out of it.
at December 10, 2005 6:12 PM
Il Toscano:
"...I just saw that Dr. Elbaradei of the IAEA just won the Nobel Peace Prize. Is this guy a serious person or is he of the ilk of Kofi Anan?"
Trusting Mohammed to 'control' Abdullah is the same as trusting a Fox to guard your chicken-shack.
Makes sense?
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at December 10, 2005 9:44 PM
Just saw your post, Geoff -- cheers and good luck! Keep fighting the good fight and spreading the word! I'll just leave it at that for now...!
Posted by: jsla at December 13, 2005 10:43 PM
(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.)