Criticism of the UN? Inadmissible!

[Crazed Rabbit]

A fellow from the UN Watch group unloaded on the human rights council for the foundation of hating Israel on which the council operates. The Council President told him any further such statements would be inadmissible (though he doesn't seem to mind all many of other insults and slurs)

Here's the video of the speech:
http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nl/...923&ct=3698367

And a transcript:

Mr. President,

Six decades ago, in the aftermath of the Nazi horrors, Eleanor Roosevelt, Réné Cassin and other eminent figures gathered here, on the banks of Lake Geneva, to reaffirm the principle of human dignity. They created the Commission on Human Rights. Today, we ask: What has become of their noble dream?

In this session we see the answer. Faced with compelling reports from around the world of torture, persecution, and violence against women, what has the Council pronounced, and what has it decided?

Nothing. Its response has been silence. Its response has been indifference. Its response has been criminal.

One might say, in Harry Truman’s words, that this has become a Do-Nothing, Good-for-Nothing Council.

But that would be inaccurate. This Council has, after all, done something.

It has enacted one resolution after another condemning one single state: Israel. In eight pronouncements—and there will be three more this session—Hamas and Hezbollah have been granted impunity. The entire rest of the world—millions upon millions of victims, in 191 countries—continue to go ignored.

So yes, this Council is doing something. And the Middle East dictators who orchestrate this campaign will tell you it is a very good thing. That they seek to protect human rights, Palestinian rights.

So too, the racist murderers and rapists of Darfur women tell us they care about the rights of Palestinian women; the occupiers of Tibet care about the occupied; and the butchers of Muslims in Chechnya care about Muslims.

But do these self-proclaimed defenders truly care about Palestinian rights?

Let us consider the past few months. More than 130 Palestinians were killed by Palestinian forces. This is three times the combined total that were the pretext for calling special sessions in July and November. Yet the champions of Palestinian rights—Ahmadinejad, Assad, Khaddafi, John Dugard—they say nothing. Little 3-year-old boy Salam Balousha and his two brothers were murdered in their car by Prime Minister Haniyeh’s troops. Why has this Council chosen silence?

Because Israel could not be blamed. Because, in truth, the dictators who run this Council couldn’t care less about Palestinians, or about any human rights.

They seek to demonize Israeli democracy, to delegitimize the Jewish state, to scapegoat the Jewish people. They also seek something else: to distort and pervert the very language and idea of human rights.

You ask: What has become of the founders’ dream? With terrible lies and moral inversion, it is being turned into a nightmare.

Thank you, Mr. President.

REPLY BY U.N. HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL PRESIDENT LUIS ALFONSO DE ALBA:

For the first time in this session I will not express thanks for that statement. I shall point out to the distinguished representative of the organization that just spoke, the distinguished representative of United Nations Watch, if you'd kindly listen to me. I am sorry that I'm not in a position to thank you for your statement. I should mention that I will not tolerate any similar statements in the Council. The way in which members of this Council were referred to, and indeed the way in which the council itself was referred to, all of this is inadmissible. In the memory of the persons that you referred to, founders of the Human Rights Commission, and for the good of human rights, I would urge you in any future statements to observe some minimum proper conduct and language. Otherwise, any statement you make in similar tones to those used today will be taken out of the records.

Seems not having this council would be better than what we have now.

Crazed Rabbit

[Watchman]

I can see some demonizing being done all right.

[Marshal Murat]

I am proud that the human race can produce people like that.

[Mooks]

Good god. I have never read such a fine piece of oratory since iv read those books on roman senators. That guy is awsome.

/time to watch the movie. Must get munchies.

[Tribesman]

I am proud that the human race can produce people like that.

Yep its a strange quirk of evolution , how some people can manage to say something like........
It has enacted one resolution after another condemning one single state: Israel. In eight pronouncements—and there will be three more this session—Hamas and Hezbollah have been granted impunity. ....and not break into fits of laughter .
Or was he being serious ?

[Mooks]

Oooo comon. He couldve done a little bit of pacing back and forth and counting on his fingers. And he looked at his notes every 5 seconds, like someone just handed him the script and said "read this today".

[BDC]

It's not a UN thing, it's the problem of who makes up the UN.

If we get rid of humans, the UN would be perfect.

[Goofball]

Yep its a strange quirk of evolution , how some people can manage to say something like........
It has enacted one resolution after another condemning one single state: Israel. In eight pronouncements—and there will be three more this session—Hamas and Hezbollah have been granted impunity. ....and not break into fits of laughter .
Or was he being serious ?

Sorry. I'm a pretty smart guy with a pretty good sense of humor, but I still coudn't find anything that funny about the oration.

Maybe because he didn't punctuate it with enough " " like you do for the rest of us who are a little slower on the uptake.

The fact is that there are a whole bunch of Muslim nations, but only one Israel. That means that any motion condemning Israel always passes with an overwhelming majority, but motions condemning Palestinian violence against Israel don't even make it to a vote. It's a simple question of majority ruling and has nothing to do with the right or wrong of the situation.

I have no illusions about Israel being a bastion of fairness and politeness when it comes to dealing with perceived threats to its security. But I also know that if I was in Israel's position I would fight pretty dirty too.

I was happy as hell that the Canadian government was the first to cut off aid to the Palestinian authority after the terrorists were elected. At least somebody had the balls to call a spade a spade.

[Watchman]

If I was in Israel's shoes I'd stop bullying the Palestinians for their farmland and water, dump the whole Eretz Yisrael idea into the bottom of the Dead Sea, and actually get serious about peaceful coexistence instead of hiding behind my big patron while still being an ass. Might have a lot less reason to fight dirty that way, as well as rather fewer sworn enemies.

But then again I'm a spineless Euro pinko-commie who hates freedom.

As many areas have managed to not coexist peacefully for hundreds of years I feel that this is rather optimistic, small, vocal protagonists or no.

You may have noticed state-level wars aren't nearly as popular as they once were though. Something to do with the element of staggering expenses in human and financial resources for little gain they tend to involve these days, I understand.

[Beirut]

I was happy as hell that the Canadian government was the first to cut off aid to the Palestinian authority after the terrorists were elected. At least somebody had the balls to call a spade a spade.

I'm trying to be a good boy and stay out of all this, but I completely disagree with the stance of the Canadian government. We let in war criminals, provided them with handouts, homes, and lawyers. We sell guns and bombs and nuclear reactors to all manner of governments. We buy, sell, and trade with almost anyone anywhere if there is a profit to be made. The worst manner of foreign officials who violate human rights are treated like dignitaries and given the red carpet.

But it all comes to a screeching halt when it involves the Palestinians. That's when our chewy moral center catapults through the top of our government's heads and cries out with all sorts of indignation that "we don't deal with terrorists". It's a complete farce and it kills any chance of putting an end to the violence in Palestine. How are we supposed to have any positive impact on these people by shutting them out? The people Harper refuses to talk to are exactly the people he needs to talk to.

Get the leader of the Hamas government over here, treat him like a foreign dignitary, show him the sights, involve him in our culture, talk to him, learn about what he's doing right and wrong in his government and then tell him. Show him schools and hospitals and offer grants to build these things in Palestine when the violence stops. Do something other than fold our arms, turn our backs and act like little children saying "I'm not talking to you anymore."

Harper's stance on Palestine is wrong, hypocritical, and un-Canadian. If it means helping to end suffering and killing we should be prepared to talk to anyone, anywhere, anytime. It's who we are. At least it's who we are supposed to be.

Hell, Israel has killed far more Canadians than Palestinians have and our diplomatic relations with Israel didn't stop for two seconds.

[Vladimir]

I'm for the side that doesn't want to kill me .

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Often they are, though. Rome. Mongolia. England. France. Germany. The USSR. The USA. All have been very powerful and all have gone bonkers with that power.

So Rome was evil ? Didnt most of these you mentioned civilize the world? That sometimes they abused their power only makes them human.

Yet many people risked death hiding Jews from the Nazis. And many more died fighting the Nazis.

I'll take the better part of human nature, you can keep the killing part.

Its one thing to be willing to die for your country , Its another thing entirely to be willing to let your country and peoples die because you wont fight for it.

If they don't accept they have lost yet, they can still aspire to win by the sword - or the suicide bomb. After all, Israelis beat off a much stronger power (which to all intents and purposes had "won") by bombing the King David Hotel, among other asymmetric acts of war.

No they hope to win by propaganda. They have hope because many people like some here support them.

Israel employed quite similar guerrilla tactics against the other powers that "won" their land by the sword

Name one Israeli suicide bomber. You cant compare the Irgun to modern Palestinian terrorists.

I wonder, if your homeland was occupied, when would you give up knowing you'd lost? When they told you to? When they bulldozed your house? Or when your children were shot?

Its not their homeland.

and the fact that their existence is guaranteed by the US

Their existence is guaranteed by the Israeli armed forces. Even wiithout US support they would survive.

The terrorists are the only people that can stop the terror, ergo, they must be talked to).

You might as well talk to the wall.

[Suraknar]

Few words are as politically or emotionally charged as terrorism. A 1988 study by the US Army counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements. Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur in 1999 also has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the "only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence". For this and for political reasons, many news sources avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers", "militants", etc.

Terrorism is a crime in many countries and is defined by statute (see below for particular definitions). Common principles amongst legal definitions of terrorism provide an emerging consensus as to meaning and also foster cooperation between law enforcement personnel in different countries.

Among these definitions, several do not recognize the possibility of the legitimate use of violence by civilians against an invader in an occupied country, and would thus label all resistance movements as terrorist groups. Others make a distinction between lawful and unlawful use of violence. Russia for example includes in their terrorist list only those organizations which represent the greatest threat to their own security. Ultimately, the distinction is a political judgment.

It has also been argued that the political use of violent force and weapons that deliberately target or involve civilians, and do not focus mainly on military or government targets, is a common militant, terrorist, or guerilla tactic, and a main defining feature of these kinds of people. Most governments and "legitimate" military leaders do not openly attempt to use civilians as shields or aim at them during times of political conflict. Whereas the definition of a terrorist can specify that a militant or a militant group has the criminal intent, planning, and actions to violently use civilian targets and civilian shields for political and economic ends.

As terrorism ultimately involves the use or threat of violence with the aim of creating fear not only to the victims but among a wide audience, it is fear which distinguishes terrorism from both conventional and guerrilla warfare. While both conventional military forces may engage in psychological warfare and guerrilla forces may engage in acts of terror and other forms of propaganda, they both aim at military victory. Terrorism on the other hand aims to achieve political or other goals, when direct military victory is not possible. This has resulted in some social scientists referring to guerrilla warfare as the "weapon of the weak" and terrorism as the "weapon of the weakest"

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism

When the Nazis occupied France, and the French began resisting, the Nazis called them terrorists.

The Issue is certaintly complicated, but it can only have two solutions:

1 - Fight forever

2 - Decide to Live in Peacefull coexistance - independently of Religion or Language. Same rights for both sides, no second class citizenships, equal governement representation. Sacrifices and tolerance have to be made from both sides.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

When the Nazis occupied France, and the French began resisting, the Nazis called them terrorists

The old one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter routine. If you cant tell the difference I dont know what to say? Did the French resistance go around blowing up innocent German civilians? Do the Palestinians really think that suicide bombing gets them anywhere or will defeat Israel by using that tactic? Does anyone else doubt that in reality this is why they dont have their state? How can any people be so damn stupid.

[Banquo's Ghost]

You might as well talk to the wall.

Yes, on reading your responses I have that feeling.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yes, on reading your responses I have that feeling.

I guess Im the only one who believes you cant negotiate with terrorists LOL.
Terrorist
"Look what we want is you dead. "

What do you negotiate the manner of your death ?

[Banquo's Ghost]

I guess Im the only one who believes you cant negotiate with terrorists LOL.
Terrorist
"Look what we want is you dead. "

What do you negotiate the manner of your death ?

No, not the only one. For example, Dr Ian Paisley refused ever to talk to terrorists and wrapped himself forever in the flag of No Surrender.

I wonder who is in his new cabinet? I wonder which country allowed them to be supported financially and politically while they chose the manner of death for innocents?

[Soulforged]

I guess Im the only one who believes you cant negotiate with terrorists LOL.
Terrorist
"Look what we want is you dead. "

What do you negotiate the manner of your death ?

Not all terrorists are mindless murderers Gawain, many want a change (social, political, religious), they kill people because they want something done. Killing people is not their goal but the mean to achieve that goal.

By the way welcome back and hope you're OK.

[Beirut]

That sometimes they abused their power only makes them human.

Such subtle words to describe a hundred million dead.

Abuse of power may be human nature. But it is also human nature to recognize that that abuse is aberant behaviour and that it should be condemned and fought.

Its another thing entirely to be willing to let your country and peoples die because you wont fight for it.

Hence the Palestinians who stand face to turret with 60 ton Merkervas and throw rocks at them while the other side throws 120mm shells.

Ya just gotta love the chutzpah of those kids. Every time I see a picture of someone, anyone, standing face to face with a tank and refusing to back down, it actually gives me hope for the future.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Such subtle words to describe a hundred million dead.

Humans are killers. Get over it.

But it is also human nature to recognize that that abuse is aberant behaviour and that it should be condemned and fought.

And in most of the countries you mentioned this is the case.

Hence the Palestinians who stand face to turret with 60 ton Merkervas and throw rocks at them while the other side throws 120mm shells.

Except their not a peoples and never had a country.

Ya just gotta love the chutzpah of those kids. Every time I see a picture of someone, anyone, standing face to face with a tank and refusing to back down, it actually gives me hope for the future.

I think they and you are all nuts :)

[Beirut]

Humans are killers. Get over it.

I prefer to fight the instinct.

I think they and you are all nuts :)

We are crunchy and delicious, are we not?

[IrishArmenian]

Except their not a peoples and never had a country.

You really think that sovereignty is what defines a people? Israel was only created in 1948, and before that, the only thing the Jews had was the Kingdom of Israel (later fragmenting into Israel and Judah). They were and still are a people.
The Chechens don't have a nation.
The various American Indian Tribes don't have nations.
Neither do the Welsh (Isn't it just the United Kingdom of Britain, Scotland and North Ireland?)
The Basques do not have a nation, nor do the Catalans.
By this logic, any people under foreign rule loose their rights as a people? That is one of the most inhumane points of view I can think of.
Palestinians are the Arabised descendants of Philistines, Canaanites and Jews who remained in Palestine during the Diaspora.