Re: Under law for the U.N.

"alexz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Israel withdraws UN resolution
> By MELISSA RADLER
>
> At the United Nations, the lives of Israeli children are worth less
> than the lives of Palestinian children, Israel's ambassador to the UN
> Dan Gillerman said Wednesday after he was forced to withdraw a
> resolution calling for the protection of Israeli children from
> terrorism.
>
Must be anti semitism musnt it , like the Europeans?
Despite the fact that only in Poland were people (and their loved ones)
immediately executed if caught trying to save Jews. Very little said.
BUT DON'T THE 3 MILLION CHRISTIANS COUNT?
http://www.holocaustforgotten.com/Lucaire.htm


Goodness we would not want to pass a resolution that would cover all
children would we?
Sunday afternoon, June 17, the dunes

http://www.harpers.org/online/gaza_diary/gaza_diary.php3?pg=7

> "The voice of the immoral majority was once again heard loud and
> clear," Gillerman told the UN General Assembly's Third (Humanitarian,
> Social and Cultural) Committee after failing to garner enough support
> from the organization's 191 members to proceed with a vote.
>

Why not all the children kewish or not?
The Testimony of a Rescuer

http://motlc.wiesenthal.org/text/x00/xm0054.html

Of course she wanted to help you jews because she new what the Germans were
doing were wrong.

Now you are calling her anti semitic because she tells you what you are
doing is wrong?


In particular the Hungarian army, or rather the senior officers,
were>>opposed to the extradition of these people and gave most of the Jewish
men>>a a refuge in the labor companies of the front line divisions,
thus>>keeping them out of the grasp of the
police.http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/r/ftp.py?people/r/roberts.jeff/1
996/roberts.1096

http://veritas.nizkor.org/ftp.py?orgs/australian/adelaide-institute/open-letter-960622


> On Nov. 6, the same committee adopted a similar resolution calling for
> the protection of Palestinian children from Israeli aggression by a
> vote of 88 to 4 with 58 abstentions.
>
> The Israeli draft, the Jewish state's first at the UN since 1976, was
> introduced earlier this month in response to numerous terrorist
> attacks that have targeted Israeli children, including a bombing at
> the Maxim restaurant in Haifa on Oct. 4 that killed 21 people, among
> them four children.
>
> Gillerman withdrew the draft after a group of states from the
> Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), led by Egypt, demanded the inclusion of
> amendments that, if adopted, would have turned the draft into an
> anti-Israel resolution.

Anti Israel, anti semitic, anti nazi it is becoming all the same.
Clean up up your act, you have turned into nazis.

>
> The list of amendments, cosponsored by Bahrain, Malaysia, Saudi
> Arabia, South Africa, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen,
> included deleting of the phrase "Israeli children" from the text and
> replacing it with "Middle East children," and inserting references to
> Israeli "military assaults," "occupation" and ""excessive use of
> force" ahead of all mention of terrorism. Even the title of the draft
> was changed from "The situation of and assistance to Israeli children"
> to "The situation of and assistance to children in the Middle East
> region."
>
> "It's shameful that Egypt, which has a peace treaty with Israel,
> sabotaged this resolution," said Gillerman. Had Israel not withdrawn
> the resolution, inclusion of the amendments was virtually assured due
> to the NAM's majority status at the UN.
>
> The international community's failure to come out in favor of the
> resolution "makes it very clear that the UN General Assembly is an
> unreliable and biased body with no international integrity. The
> message sent today by the UN Third Committee to Israeli children is
> that your lives are worth less than Palestinian children," said
> Gillerman.

No! seems to be a consesus that all childrens lives are woth more than the
nazi Israeli regime puts on them.
WHY NOT INVADE ISRAEL ?



If rogue nations are to be brought into line by the US, shouldn't

Israel be punished for ignoring UN resolutions?



Gerald Kaufman is just asking...



The unprecedented security measures for President Bush's visit

to Britain this week prove that the war against terrorism, launched

by the United States two years ago, has certainly not been won.



(Quite the reverse, it has incited and increased terrorism.)



But if the invasion of Iraq last spring was not about Saddam

Hussein's alleged links to international terrorism.....



(It was not - there were none - and OBL and Saddam hate

each other)



.....what was its rationale and what was its justification? Tony

Blair has proclaimed, with total sincerity I have no doubt, ...



(Oh, come ON, Gerald !)



...that one consideration was the danger of weapons of mass

destruction.



(There were and are none.    Outside Israel, that is.)



.....



But, if the removal by armed force of one disagreeable regime

under one objectionable head of government is a good thing,

why stop there? The world is full of horrible governments.

Would it not be a good idea to make a clean sweep of them?



Where, then, do we start? There is a multiplicity of horrible or

incompetent governments in central and west Africa, for example,

in countries where the toll of dead and tortured far exceeds even

the total gassed, executed and mangled by Saddam. Their removal,

and replacement by genuine democratic governments seeking to

reconcile rather than repress, would be an indisputable benefit

to humankind.



(Starting with Rhodesia, aka Zimbabwe, which IS responsible

for the murder of British people and the theft of their lands -

unlike Iraq - which is not.)



Even a relatively innocuous African government, that of Morocco,

has been responsible for driving into squalid refugee camps in

neighbouring Algeria the Sahrawi desert people, whose homeland

of Western Sahara it has illegally occupied, and, through rigging

the electorate by shipping in large numbers of Moroccans, has

prevented a genuine referendum taking place to decide the country's

future - a referendum, moreover, to which the United Nations is

fruitlessly committed.



(The trick of having the appearance of democracy, whilst in

practice reducing it to a sham, has been brought to a high

art form.    Not least in Britain and America.)



.......

The Turkish treatment - or mistreatment - of the Kurdish people,

........



South of Turkey, there is Israel. It is true that the United Nations

Security Council resolutions of which Iraq was in violation for

a dozen years were mandatory and carried penalties, while those

criticising Israel were not. That does not excuse successive

Israeli governments during the past 36 years for failing to conform

to Security Council and General Assembly resolutions. They

would have violated even more if the United States, otherwise

so assiduous in stressing the importance of international order,

had not vetoed them.



Since the present regime in Israel came to office, there has

been unprecedented repression of the Palestinians who the

Israelis govern. The world is rightly horrified at the cruel and

bloody deaths of Israeli civilians, including babies and small

children, inflicted by terrorist suicide bombers.



(Which would not have happened if the Israelis had not

murdered them and stolen their land.)



Grievous though every one of these deaths most certainly is,

it cannot be denied that during the three years of the Second

Intifada the Israelis have killed three times as many Palestinians,

some of them terrorists (in illegal targeted assassinations) but

most of them innocent civilians, including babies and pregnant

women.



Now the Israelis are building an illegal security wall, reaching

far into Palestinian territory, which is equally illegally annexing

that territory, separating farmers from their homes, students from

universities, children from schools, and which will violate the

sanctity of Bethlehem. Roads into villages are being bulldozed,

and the trenches which render them impassable are being filled

with sewage. Some Palestinians need written permission to live

in their own homes. There are 482 Israeli military checkpoints

dividing Palestinian land into 300 small clusters.



It is not even as if these nasty measures are effective. Last

month 20 people, including a whole family from grandmother

to baby grandchild, were among those murdered by a suicide

bomber at a café in Haifa. Last month, after visiting the

Palestinian town of Qalqilya, which is being enclosed within a

noose-like wall by the Israelis, I was driven back to Jerusalem

via the Palestinian town of Tulkarm. Next day a bomber attacked

an Israeli administrative post outside Tulkarm.



No wonder that only three weeks ago the Israeli chief of staff,

Lieutenant General Moshe Ya'alon, expressed concern about

the building of the wall, said the Israeli government's policies

were 'operating contrary to our strategic interests,' argued that

the restrictions were increasing hatred of Israel and encouraging

terrorism, and lamented: 'There is no hope, no expectations

for the Palestinians in the Gaza strip, nor in Bethlehem and

Jericho' (whose agricultural and horticultural economy is being

ruined). No wonder that a member of the Israeli government,

the infrastructure minister, Yosef Paritzky, has said recently:

'The failure to differentiate between civilians and terrorists

turns all the Palestinians into potential suicide bombers.'



Hey, wait a minute! Surely Israel does not qualify as a suitable

case for invasion ? Surely Israel is a democracy ? Surely Israel's

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was democratically elected,

and even re-elected ? Such undeniable facts do not detract

from the record.



Sharon was the prime mover in the only war that Israel has

ever lost, the invasion of Lebanon. The Kahan commission

inquiring into the Sabra-Chatilla massacre of Palestinians

outside Beirut recommended that, for his connection with

those events, Sharon should leave the Israeli Cabinet. It was

Sharon who triggered the Second Intifada in 2000 by his

provocative visit to the Temple Mount. And is it not members

of the Sharon family, including the Prime Minister himself,

who have been the object of investigations by the Israeli

legal authorities?



And would it not be poetic justice to invade the invaders?

After all, the Israelis, who illegally invaded Lebanon until they

found the going too tough and got out; the Turks, who illegally

invaded Cyprus and even aspire to be a member of the

European Union when in illegal possession of part of a country

which is due to become a member of the European Union

less than six months from now; the Moroccans, who continue

to thwart the will of the United Nations with every moment their

troops and immigrants remain in the Western Sahara - surely

they could not have the effrontery to object to invasion, which

they have practised without qualm, simply because they

would be at the receiving end ?



If the United States is keen to invade countries that disrupt

international standards of order,



(or illegally hold weapons of mass destruction)



should not Israel, for example, be considered as a candidate?

But, quite apart from the hard fact that even the rich and

powerful US does not possess enough dollars and manpower

to invade and occupy the countries I have mentioned (plus

other rogue states, too many to list), is the US suited to

maintaining international law?



After all, has not the United States, on the basis of dubious

legality, invaded nearby countries on the American continent,

such as Panama and Grenada? Has it not got a questionable

human rights record, with the level of capital punishment,

including the execution of mentally retarded prisoners, one

of the worst in the democratic world? Is it not keeping a

collection of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, whose

detention appears to have no legal basis whatever? And does

it not have a president who was never elected, but appointed

by the Supreme Court after electoral finagling in the electorally

clinching state which just happens to be governed by that

president's brother? Who, then, should invade the United

States? The despised United Nations?



Maybe this invading business is not such a good idea.

Maybe, even though Saddam was abominable and his regime

nauseating, the invasion of Iraq may turn out not to have

been such a good precedent after all.