| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
In the last few decades, under the leadership of Nazi war criminal Kurt Waldheim and later the corrupt (well, only many of his staff, only his son) puppet Kofi Annan, the U.N. has seen all blocs fall away: no Soviet bloc, and no Western bloc. No non-aligned bloc, or much of one. All blocs but one have gone: the Arab bloc, which in turn directs from within a larger Islamic bloc, and bribes others. And those others are not always from the sub-Saharan countries so famously bribed in the immediate aftermath of the Six-Day War, to break their relations and cut off the aid they had been receiving, from Israel.
All over the Secretariat, the members of the Islamintern International make their steady way. They need not all be Muslims. Think of Edward Mortimer, the head of Kofi Annan's Office of Communications, his head speech-writer, and as he liked to call himself, a "Senior Adviser to Kofi Annan." Take a look: read my “Tribute to Edward Mortimer" and find out how fond he was of the Ayatollah Khomeini and how unfond he is of Israel. “To quote Charles James Fox, this is quite the most glorious morning in the history of mankind" was how he began his report for English readers on the arrival of Khomeini, to a delirious welcome, in Tehran. Look also at his enthusiasm for Lonnie Brenner's conspiracy-theory book about "Zionist" power -- the Protocols never die, they are just modified to make them a little less obvious, a little more palatable. And certainly Edward Mortimer found them palatable.
Mr. Moon might have been different. He might, somehow, one felt, after all that has happened over the past few years, have started to sense that just possibly Israel was not some gigantic empire extending its tentacles while poor, tiny, helpless, peaceful Arabs cowered in fear. Perhaps, one thought, he would fire Mortimer (where is Mortimer?) and realize that the U.N. does not so much have a general problem but a specific problem, brought upon itself by it becoming a handmaiden of Arab Islam at a time when the entire Infidel world is, in fact, directly or indirectly, threatened by a revived sense of power (and the power that ten trillion dollars, the Muslim take from OPEC, can give you) on the part of Muslims worldwide. That revived sense of power is combined with the perceived ability to "invade" as immigrants, by the tens of millions, the Bilad al-kufr, or lands of the Infidels. And what's more, those immigrants feel they should be offered every generous benefit those Infidels have created for their own population. And what's more still, they believe they can settle deep within those lands and make demand after demand, behaving as outrageously as they can, showing as little loyalty as they can, unsettling Infidels as much as possible, and creating new expenses and new worries for the indigenous Infidels. And they are embarrassed, those Infidels, even apologetic, about daring to worry. They are embarrassed about daring to take the most minimal measures of self-defense, or daring to attempt to preserve their legal and political institutions intact, as well as their social arrangements and tolerances arrived at over time.
It is the entire U.N. that has been spending one-third or more of its time on the "Palestinian people" -- a fictive construct with obvious political uses, by now so imbedded in the brains and on the tongues of so many that to walk back the cat with them, show them how the trick was performed, becomes a complicated matter. For they don't want to know how they have been fooled. All that attention, all those resolutions corrupt those countries that, despite knowing better, allow themselves to take the easy path. They have their representatives, even from Italy and Denmark and the Czech Republic and Iceland, perfectly decent countries that know better, raise their hands again and again to denounce Israel and deny it, essentially, its legal, historic, and moral claims, and its right to defend itself. All of this will come back to haunt the others -- those who were not the first victims of Jihad in the postwar world, as was Israel. But it will certainly not be overlooked, and not be forgotten, by Muslims working to remove all obstacles to the dominance, everywhere, of Islam, and the rule, by Muslims, everywhere.
Moon has shown himself to be incapable of resisting the current. He will be swept along, and so will the U.N., and so will all those who think that by appeasing the Arabs in their Lesser Jihad against Israel, or doing nothing against them in their Lesser Jihad in southern Sudan, or in Kashmir, or elsewhere, that their "grievances" will be limited, their "sense of being wronged" will be assuaged. But as long as anywhere Muslims are thwarted in their aims -- and not merely over tiny Israel -- their sense of world-entitlement, their sense of the obvious and permanent and natural, given-by-God superiority of Islam and of Muslims (and within Islam, the superiority of the Arabs over the non-Arab Muslims) will not merely remain, but gain in strength. For every victory, based on every concession by Infidels, does not sate, but whets the Muslim appetite. This lesson has to be learned.
Moon may be able to undo a little, if he can take the time to study up himself, and not listen only to the members of the Islamintern International who no doubt have endlessly repeated to him -- was Rishmawi involved, the sly propagandist who had such an effect on Mary Robinson? -- the Received Version of the "Palestinian people" and All That They've Suffered Over the Past Two Thousand Years.
But with this, he gives every sign of being -- one more of the same.
Posted by Hugh at February 6, 2007 8:57 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
A more appropriate name for the UN is the United Islamic Nations and their Dhimmis (UIND). Remember America you pay 27% of the UN budget which is devoted to destroying America. How does that make you feel?
Posted by: John Sobieski![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 6, 2007 9:28 AM
Hugh,
You state
“It is the entire U.N. that has been spending one-third or more of its time on the "Palestinian people" “
I don’t doubt that this may be true but I would love to know the factual basis of this statistic.
Famously, the UN General Assembly has passed more resolutions condemning Israel than any other country.
The number of resolutions passed condemning human-rights resolutions such as Saudi-Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, The Sudan etc has been disgracefully low.
There is no doubt that the scale of hypocrisy and double-standards the UN is capable of is enormous.
And this can be shown through statistics.
It is just, for a statement like this to carry more authority, the statistics need to be listed, broken down, referenced etc.
We should also compare it with massive human-rights violations in other countries, such as the ones listed above, along with evidence of the UN’s inactivity.
A good example:
What about the ongoing genocide in Southern Sudan.
If you stretch the time frame back to the early 1980’s it is estimated that 2 million people have been killed, largely because of the determination of the Islamic North to impose a Sharia system on the Christian-Sharia South.
Vast crimes have been carried out by the Janjaweed militia supported by the Government in Khartoum.
This support has taken the form not only of arms but use of military aircraft.
Why does the UN not impose a No-fly zone as was used in the 1990’s in the former Yugoslavia?
Why is someone like Bill Clinton not supporting intervention in The Sudan as he did in Kosovo?
And incidentally, why does George Bush not support a no-fly zone in Southern Sudan? If he wants to prove that American foreign policy in the region is not simply dictated by access to cheap oil then this is his chance.
at February 6, 2007 9:36 AM
"why does George Bush not support a no-fly zone in Southern Sudan?"
-- from a posting above
Why does he not get out of Iraq and, with air power and a few thousand troops, who would indeed be given a hero's welcome and that welcome would not, as in Iraq, be either temporary or feigned, but permanent and real, seize both the southern Sudan and Darfur, and announce that the troops are there to "stop the genocide" (Nicholas Kristof and company will have a hard time objecting, won't they?), and the Arab League will be in a rage, but even the E.U., and the African states, will not be able to come up with a plausible reason why this humanitarian act (which also happens to be a way to hearten black African Christians and demoralize Muslims, including Egypt that keeps bullying Ethiopia over the waters of the Nile, who are so intent on extending their dominion throughout black Africa) should be opposed.
Sudan offers a great opportunity. And so do many other situations. But stuck to tarbaby Iraq, an administration that can only think in terms of military intervention on a clunk-clunk-clunk large scale, and lacks the wit and cunning to conduct a thousand different attacks, here and there and everywhere, using propaganda to divide non-Arab Muslims from Arab Muslims (merely by pointing to, by broadcasting about, by making speeches about, Islam as a vehicle of Arab imperialism, which can be seen in both the theory of Islam, and in the practice of Arab Muslims -- see Kurds, see Berbers, see black African Muslims in Darfur), using money to support clever anti-Jihad operatives, whether in Europe or elsewhere, whether organized in political parties or other forms, or merely opponents (Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, and not a few Infidels who with support could do a lot more than they are currently capable of doing), and to locate, and exploit, those points of conflict, as in the Sudan, where Arabs and Muslims would have a hard time convincing others that such American or Western intervention is wrong.
The southern Sudan and Darfur cry out for American intervention. After 2 million black African victims in the former, and a half-million black African victims in the latter, what more need be invoked to justify such intervention?
Posted by: Hugh at February 6, 2007 10:22 AM
Hugh,
Thank you for your insightful reply.
Your views on The southern Sudan and Darfur are essentially irrefutable.
I agree.
But what about my original question?
You state
“It is the entire U.N. that has been spending one-third or more of its time on the "Palestinian people" “
I don’t doubt the attention that the attention the UN gives this issue is grossly disproportionate, along with the EU, academia, the media etc…… all to the detriment of other, much more important issues.
But is it really “one-third?”
What was the factual basis of this statement?
at February 6, 2007 10:51 AM
That statement was not meant to reflect more than a distinct impression, an impression based on such things as:
1) Numbers of General Assembly resolutions about some aspect of the Arab-Israeli "dispute" (in truth, about the Lesser Jihad against Israel)
2) Numbers of U.N. sponosored fora on general topics, such as "Racism" or "Women" that turn out always to contain a very large component of anti-Israel stuff and nonsense, and sometimes become almost entirely devoted to the subject. Remember Durban, that became a kangaroo-court, its phony deliberations immediately interrupted by a lynch-mob come to hang the Eternal Defendant, Israel.
And it would have happened, had the Conference not ended just a day or two before -- what was it again? Yes, 9/11/2001, and the dancing and partying and cheers in Cairo (reported by Frank Gardner), in Riyadh (reported by all sorts of expatriate workers), in Beirut (reported by a female correspondent for the Wall Street Journal), and of course, and especailly, all over Gaza and the West Bank, with the ululating, and the much mafeking, captured on tape, which even the vigilant PLO bully-boys and enforces did not manage entirely to seize and destroy. Some of it got out.
And along with all those resolutions devoted to denunication of Israel, and its Mighty Empire, and those U.N.-sponsored gatherings, there is all the money that continues to be spent, and which all the real refugees are made to suffer from, on UNRWA and the ever-expanding racket by which Arabs never die but stay forever on that international, Infidel-financed dole, and all kinds of Arabs in Jordan and Lebanon simply sign up for the benefits, and those running UNRWA are themselves the "Palestinians" and their close Westeern sympathizers who have a stake in keeping it all going, and no stake at all in blowing whistles or pointing out the farce of calling "refugees" those who left, almost in all cases not because they were harried out or feared being murdered (as did the much larger number of Jews who fled Arab lands), but because they assumed the five Arab armies would win, and it was best to get out of the way while they were winning, to return after the mopping-up of all those dead and vanguished Jews. That it didn't turn out that way is what caused many of those people to become, despite all the evidence, to be called "Arab refugees" from 1948 to about 1968, when the "Palestinian people" fictionn began to gain traction.
But your question is reasonable.So it will take me time -- I can't do it today -- but I will try to find the total number of U.N. resolutions, and the number of those devoted to Israel. I will try to find out the number of U.N. conferences at which Israel turns into the object of bashing. I will find out about the assorted succursales of the U.N., such as the Committee on Human Rights that meets in Geneva, and has practically no other topic but Israel.
And where will I place it?
I will try to put it up in a separate posting at JW, so that all can see and do the math for themselves, and draw their own conclusions as to whether or not I have exaggerated, or told the awful truth.
Posted by: Hugh at February 6, 2007 12:29 PM
Hugh said
I will try to find the total number of U.N. resolutions, and the number of those devoted to Israel.
Here is a summary of Shai Ben-Tekoa's research, apparently from 1991 or so, that makes the claim:
UN Security Council
175 Total Resolutions
97 Against Israel
So, that gives:
55% of all UN Resolutions were criticisms of Israel. If anything, Hugh under-represented UN bias.
Here is a Wikipedia article that lists the UN resolutions against Israel.
Sorry this wasn't more definitive. I know I've seen those numbers before, but can't find them now. It looks like Hugh is doing original research.
When all is said and done (take that as you may), the UN may actually end up being perceived as far inferior to the League of Nations. That's saying something.
at February 6, 2007 7:37 PM
Here's an overview about the author (re. another book)- seems she's still confused about islam:
Kirkus Reviews
Prominent Egyptian feminist Saadawi--imprisoned in Sadat's round-up of perceived foes, and only recently released--made a stir with a powerful piece in Ms. that stands out, unfortunately, as the one strong segment here. Saadawi's overall purpose is to defend Islamic treatment of women against Western feminists' criticism--and to the extent that she has in mind Western cultural imperialism, she has a point. Otherwise, her anger at the position of Arab (especially Egyptian) women is so sharp and ever-present that her defense of Islam is unconvincing by comparison. She opens with a (repetitive) discussion of sex roles and the sexual double standard: the insistence on virginity and monogamy for women only; the selling of daughters into marriage (or prostitution); the husband's complete dominion over the wife, including the right to divorce her at will; the grisly, and often unsafe, ritual removal of the clitoris. (Her description of her own circumcision at age six--subject of the Ms. piece--chillingly evokes the horror and fear every girl must feel.) Then Saadawi launches into a review of human pre-history composed largely of specious contentions and dubious generalizations and her succeeding survey of women's place in the three great religions--Judaism, Christianity, Islam--is almost equally unreliable (every footnote in her synoptic history of Judaism is to the Bible). Her attempt to prove that Islam treats women at least as well as Christianity or Judaism, if not better, fails entirely--because of that weak scholarship, because of her own expressed reactions, because she fails to consider the crucial separation of Church and State (a nation whose laws followed orthodox Christianity or Judaism would, of course, be as oppressive to women as the Islamic nations). This my-dog-is-better-than-your-dog reasoning is in any case unnecessary to the task at hand: condemnation of Western interference and control in Arab countries. For a positive view free of Saadawi's repetitions, overstatements, and contradictions, see Naila Minai's Women in Islam (1981). "
-----------
at February 6, 2007 9:19 PM
As regards UN bias, more solid research needs to be done into this.
Three good websites I have looked at
List of the UN resolutions concerning Israel
Available at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_UN_resolutions_concerning_Israel_and_Palestine
And
United Nations Security Council Resolutions
Available at
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolutions
Information on the General Assembly I take from the following source
http://www.un.org/documents/resga.htm
Well,the first website “List of the UN resolutions concerning Israel” only covers the years from 1967 to 1988. Let us take that as a representative snapshot.
It seems the Security Council passed 88 resolutions against Israel, condemning Israel 43 times.
Between 1967 and 1988 the Security Council passed 393 resolutions, so according to my calculations 22% were directed at Israel.
In the same years,the General Assemby passed 429 resolutions against Israel, condemning Israel 321 times.
By my calculations, the UN General Assembly passed 4297 resolutions in these years. That is approximetely 10% directed at Israel .These are regular sessions and not special or emergency sessions.
However, a huge number of resolutions have titles like “Amendments to the staff regulations of the UN,” etc.
To be really objective, it would be necessary to reduce the resolutions to those that actually deal with the foreign affairs of a specific country. For this you would have to look at the title of every resolution and I do not have the time right now.
But to give an example, take the year 1975.
Of 179 resolutions, 28, I take it are about specific aspects of foreign affairs.
As an indication of the UN GA’s ability to live in the real world, there is not a single resolution dealing with the genocide the Kmher Rouge was beginning to inflict on Cambodia.
There is a resolution ,3382 , entitled
IMPORTANCE OF THE UNIVERSAL REALIZATION OF THE RIGHT OF PEOPLES TO SELF-DETERMINATION AND OF THE SPEEDY GRANTING OF INDEPENDANCE TO COLONIAL COUNTRIES AND PEOPLES FOR THE EFFECTIVE GUARANTEE AND OBSERVANCE OF HUMAN RIGHTS
What counts as a colonial country I wonder?
A victim of colonialism?
Algeria? Eygpt? Constantinople?
Is the UN criticism of Israel disproportionate?
Yes I think so.
As for special-guest,
I am not sure I understand your take on Shai Ben-Tekoa's research
Does he state the following?
UN Security Council
175 Total Resolutions
97 Against Israel
So, that gives:
55% of all UN Resolutions were criticisms of Israel.
Actually he says, in the years 1947-89
the Council passed 605 resolutions of which 175 (29%) concerned this conflict.
The most recent Security Council resolution seems to be Resolution 1740 so perhaps we should work back from there.
I suppose there is a book to be written on this subject.
at February 7, 2007 12:29 PM
Odyessus:
Not cited by Special GuestOne very shining example of the special treatment accorded the Palestinians by the UN is the fact that they were deemed worthy of their own special relief agency (UNRWA) and a unique definition of "refugee status".
This unique definition not only confers refugee status on descendents of "displaced persons" but lowers the bar so far as to count as refugees, Arabs who had lived as few as two years in a given place within the 1948 borders and those who either returned from whence they came only a few years earlier or moved to where they had family ties.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at February 8, 2007 9:28 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(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.)