Post by Teddy Bear on Jun 23, 2010 22:48:01 GMT
The UN, like the BBC and most if not all of the various 'Human Rights Organisations, continue to masquerade as a force for good in the world, when in reality they are political tools used by many of the despotic regimes, particularly Islamic, to further their ambitions, with most of the more 'liberal' nations anxious to appease them for fear of reprisal within their own borders. Thus under these various 'sound good' banners, they achieve in convincing a largely unenlightened public of their 'rightness'.
Which is why expendable Israel has had far more criticism levelled against it by this bogus body than any other. After all, how many nations that comprise it are actually 'UNITED'?
Thus even back in 2002 UN Watch Chairman, Ambassador Alfred H. Moses, reminded the world about the abuse of Israel at the United Nations in an opinion piece, published 8 January 2002 in the International Herald Tribune and excerpted below.
Much more anti-Israel invective has happened since, especially with more and more nations anxious to appease an ever increasing strident Muslim aggression. Thus it is hardly surprising that Israel does not wish its actions on the Mavi Marmara to be judged by this corrupt body which would certainly dismiss real evidence to reach a certain foregone negative conclusion.
Instead it has commissioned an independent inquiry from those it believes will be impartial including 2 foreign observers.
Naturally the BBC wastes no time in drawing attention to the fact that Israel has selected its own board of inquiry, even claiming them to be 'friends of Israel'. Too bad then that a representative of Hamas is not sitting on the panel.
This is what Paul Wood of BBC News Jerusalem had to say
I couldn't help think back to June 2006 when the BBC selected their own panel to judge whether the BBC was biased or impartial in their coverage of Middle East Events there. BBC Appoints 'Independent' panel to judge own bias
As soon as I saw at the time who they'd selected the outcome was a foregone conclusion. The difference is there was not a body like the UN ready to hang Israel up to dry to further its own ambitions, that the BBC had to worry about. Yet they didn't make this observation about themselves at the time.
Which is why expendable Israel has had far more criticism levelled against it by this bogus body than any other. After all, how many nations that comprise it are actually 'UNITED'?
Thus even back in 2002 UN Watch Chairman, Ambassador Alfred H. Moses, reminded the world about the abuse of Israel at the United Nations in an opinion piece, published 8 January 2002 in the International Herald Tribune and excerpted below.
Signatory countries to the Fourth Geneva Convention recently issued a declaration singling out Israel for condemnation. The convention, adopted after the Holocaust, had never been invoked in its 52-year history, during which the world witnessed, among other outrages, the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, ethnic slaughter in Rwanda, and ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo. The declaration invoking the convention did not emerge from the present impasse between Israel and the Palestinians. Arab and Muslim countries first proposed it at a time when there was movement toward a permanent peace under the Oslo accords.
In Durban last September, Israel was singled out for opprobrium at a UN conference against racism, despite the fact that Israel since its creation has brought to its land persons of every race and color, including close to 50,000 Ethiopians. In Durban, and again in Geneva, the United States stayed away, recognizing that one-sided condemnation of Israel in international gatherings is no way to further Arab-Israeli peacemaking.
There have been remarkable achievements in the past 23 years, from the Egypt-Israel and Israel-Jordan peace treaties to the Oslo accords, which led to significant progress in Israeli-Palestinian relations. Although there is still a long way to go to achieve permanent peace, these agreements were reached through direct, bilateral negotiations, not by the actions of international bodies.
In Geneva, where most of the United Nations' humanitarian agencies are headquartered, it is America's main Muslim allies-Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia-that are leading the charge to politicize these specialized bodies. The first step is to introduce extreme language condemning Israel that even the Muslim proponents know will not be accepted. Then, European Union countries, as they did in Durban and the lead-up to the Fourth Geneva Convention declaration, soften the edges but ultimately leave intact the central thrust of the language condemning Israel.
"We have to give something to the Muslim world; they have so little," the ambassador of an important EU country in Geneva told me recently. What is being given, rhetorically at least, is Israel, presumably a small price to pay by a European country that attaches a high priority to its economic ties to the Arab world. But America's Muslim and European friends should realize there is a high price to be paid for this ritualistic criticism of Israel.
First, these efforts erode U.S. support for the United Nations itself. Standing on principle, the United States withdrew from the Durban conference once it became clear that the focus had turned away from combating racism to a frontal attack on Israel. The United States was among the minority of signatories to the Fourth Geneva Convention that refused to attend that anti-Israel gathering. Second, politicizing international bodies and turning their agendas away from rightful concerns of racism, refugees, and human rights deprive the world's most needy of assistance, including tens of millions of Muslims […]
Much more anti-Israel invective has happened since, especially with more and more nations anxious to appease an ever increasing strident Muslim aggression. Thus it is hardly surprising that Israel does not wish its actions on the Mavi Marmara to be judged by this corrupt body which would certainly dismiss real evidence to reach a certain foregone negative conclusion.
Instead it has commissioned an independent inquiry from those it believes will be impartial including 2 foreign observers.
Naturally the BBC wastes no time in drawing attention to the fact that Israel has selected its own board of inquiry, even claiming them to be 'friends of Israel'. Too bad then that a representative of Hamas is not sitting on the panel.
This is what Paul Wood of BBC News Jerusalem had to say
An experienced politician like Benjamin Netanyahu knows that getting the outcome you want from a public inquiry is all about the right terms of reference and who you appoint to sit on the inquiry.
So, the commissions' remit does not include looking at the process of government decision making which led to Israeli commando raid. It will instead focus on questions of international law.
And the two foreign observers who have been appointed are seen as friends of Israel.
Turkey - and others critical of Israel - want a fully independent UN commission of inquiry. This demand has now been deflected with the appointment of credible (but not unfriendly) international figures as non-voting observers.
Whatever happens in the commission of inquiry, Israel is under immense pressure - from allies as well as enemies - to lift the Gaza blockade.
I couldn't help think back to June 2006 when the BBC selected their own panel to judge whether the BBC was biased or impartial in their coverage of Middle East Events there. BBC Appoints 'Independent' panel to judge own bias
As soon as I saw at the time who they'd selected the outcome was a foregone conclusion. The difference is there was not a body like the UN ready to hang Israel up to dry to further its own ambitions, that the BBC had to worry about. Yet they didn't make this observation about themselves at the time.