Earlier this month I mentioned Israel’s proposed UN resolution condemning attacks against Israeli children. The resolution was designed to show the way in which the UN treats Israeli with a blatantly anti-Semitic double standard.
As suspected, the UN has utterly failed that test.
The Israeli draft, which called for the protection of Israeli children from terrorism, mirrored one on Palestinian children passed earlier this month.
But mostly Arab opponents of the text introduced changes Israel could not accept, ambassador Dan Gillerman said.
He said the UN was telling Israeli children “that your lives are worth less than Palestinian children”.
“Perhaps someone can explain to me why the hundreds of Israeli children killed or maimed in brutal terrorist attacks deserve less sympathy and attention,” the Israeli ambassador said.
This movement is entirely unexpected. The UN as an organization is a tool to forward the interests of Arab anti-Semitism. Of course the Arab representatives think that Israeli children are worth less than Arab ones – they’re Jews after all. Considering that state-funded imams frequently refer to Jews as subhumans and advocate the utter destruction of Israel, what else could one expect?
Israel should pull out of the United Nations, and the US should follow. The UN is not concerned with being a fair or impartial force for peace, it is yet another mouthpeace of hatred and appeasement.
I love the title you choose. It just shows how you, and many americans arrogant are. It would be like saying after failing an exam that the teacher failed!!
I told you a few weeks ago you should add the following posting rule:
“if you don’t agree with me, you’re not allowed to debate with me”. Now you at least agree that this rule should be followed by the US and Israel in the UN.
And once again, but you seems to forget quickly, arabs cannot be anti-semit as they are semits themselves!!
It would be like saying after failing an exam that the teacher failed!!
You don’t fail just because you fail one exam. UN has a rather lengthy history of failing.
arabs cannot be anti-semit as they are semits themselves!!
Semantics. The term “anti-semitic” means “anti-Jewish”. That’s the meaning that term assumed over the years.
where are you from?
Vincent,
USA. If you still want to argue about this, I challange you to find a case in which “anti-semitism” is used to mean anti-Arab. Go on.
Main Entry: an·ti-Sem·i·tism
Pronunciation: “an-ti-‘se-m&-“ti-z&m, “an-“tI-
Function: noun
Date: 1882
: hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group
whatever guys…culture, ethymologie, precision…who need that anymore!
Vincent,
precision…who need that anymore!
I asked you to give an example where that term is used with meaning of “anti-arab”. You failed to produce one.
Empty rhetoric.
open a browser
type http://www.dictionary.com
enter key word (here “semite”)
see the definition:
1. member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.
2. A Jew.
3.Bible. A descendant of Shem.
Even though I understand (point 2.) that “A Jew” can be understood at the main definiton for you, it’s not. If you’re talking about german anti-semitism for example I may even agree that it only applies to jews, but in this particular context of the Middle-East it really can’t be used so easilly. Sorry.
I guess this explains why I didn’t answer the previous (stupid) question:
“find a case in which “anti-semitism” is used to mean anti-Arab”
So Jay I don’t know where your definition comes from, but anyway, mine is from 2003, so it has good chances to be more reliable than your 1882 definition…
Anyway, this really is semantic debate of no interest at all you launched Stan!
So let me ask you (all of you) one question:
Do you think that the world would be better without the UN?
My definition is from the latest version of Mirriam-Webter (actually http://www.m-w.com/). Anti-Semitic has always applied only to the Jews, even if the root of the world has a broader meaning.
In fact, Larousse also has the same definition:
antisémitisme n. m. Racisme à l’égard des Juifs.
Without the UN Security Council? Absolutely.
The UN does do some valuable work, but the Security Council has shown itself to be more interested in justifying anti-Semitism (or should I just call it Jew hating?) and coddling dictators than actually solving and problems.
Consider that the very first UN mission was Cyprus – and that mission is still going on. The UN still hasn’t arranged for any kind of compromise along the island, and the only thing they’ve been able to do is sit along the DMZ and twiddle their thumbs. Meanwhile Cyprus has become a haven of sex slavery and drug trafficking. After 50 years, the UN has failed to do anything significant in Cyprus.
The UN mission in Kosovo is considered an example of a success for the UN, which only works if you ignore the horrors of Srebrenica in which the UN “safe area” became the site of the biggest mass killing in Europe since World War II.
While the UN was taking money from the “Oil for Food” program this was taking place across the country. If it weren’t for the US no-fly zones in the Kurdish and Shi’a areas of the country hundreds of thousands more might have been in those mass graves.
That’s just a sample of the failures of the UN as a peacekeeping body. Given this legacy of failure and the kind of anti-Semitism that came from the Durban Conference on Racism and Xenophobia in 2001, it is clear that the UN simply cannot be salvaged.
Even though I understand (point 2.) that “A Jew” can be understood at the main definiton for you, it’s not.
If its not the main definition then why can’t you come up with a single instance of the term being used to signify what you say it means?
Do you think that the world would be better without the UN?
Yes. Now, let me ask you this question. If US was to pull out from UN, what would happen?
Jay,
Without the UN Security Council? Absolutely.
Given the number of dictatorships (or the number of muslim states)in the UN, the General Assembly is even worse.